Thread: Street preaching in the 21st century? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026686
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
I was walking through a city centre recently when I passed a man with a megaphone, informing sinners that they would be going to hell unless they repented. I paid little attention, just as when I had passed the Jehovah's Witnesses stand, and when the charity muggers had tried to catch my attention by greeting me like a long lost friend.
And yet, as I walked on, I mused: is there a message that could be effectively preached on the streets in this day and age? (not that I would want to be a street preacher under any circumstances.) It's no secret that many passers by have troubles in their lives: difficult relationships, employment issues, past wounds, overloaded schedules, impossible demands placed upon them. Could an echo of the voice which cried out “Come unto me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest” point any of them in a direction that leads to healing? Or is street preaching of limited effectiveness for convincing anyone of anything, no matter what the message, and vastly inferior to more relational forms of reaching people?
It seems that Jesus never had any trouble attracting and keeping an audience's attention, though not all of those became loyal followers. The preaching-to-unconverted-groups in Acts often seems aimed at a particular audience with a background level of understanding in common (such as those attending the Jewish synagogue, or alternatively the philosophers on the Areopagus). Is street preaching more likely to be effective when there is a uniform culture, so that the message can be appropriately targeted? Do any shipmates have experience of cultures where it “works”?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I wonder if it worked better when even the largest cities had tiny populations compared to ours, and people tended to know one another, be intermarried, etc.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
I suspect that your megaphonic nuisance, like those who wave "John 3:16" placards at sporting events, is so far out of touch with those he's shouting at that his efforts are likely to be, on balance, counter-productive. If you wish to sell people something through fear it helps if the fear you seek to maximise has some relationship to your target's reality; attracting ridicule is not a sales technique I've ever heard recommended.
Perhaps this is why so many apologists for the various branches of Christianity downplay religion and make great play of their (often very real) social programmes. There's more chance of sneaking religion in under the radar if it's wrapped in niceness (or even better,
fun* )
rather than strident belligerence.
*"Spread the word of God with ✞ Bible Quiz 3D - Religious Game ✞ Get on a missionary journey and help the priests all over the world baptize as many unbelievers and turn them into Christians! Download this fun quiz game and answer the questions from Holy Bible to help as many followers embrace the love of God and become true believers! Play against other missionaries and see who will finish all baptism ceremonies first!
Get this educative quiz Bible trivia and help your children learn more about the Holy Book through playing and fun! By answering these interesting quiz questions about Bible verses and characters kids will learn more about their religion and accept God while playing Bible games! This Bible application is great for the whole family and it's perfect for teaching kids Christianity at Sunday School (Sabbath School)." My bolding
Posted by listener (# 15770) on
:
Some year ago a group of fundies from a small church used to hold a session downtown on a busy shopping Friday night. It was rare that anyone stayed to listen for more than five minutes, and the speaker usually went on for a half hour apparently hypnotized by the sound of his own voice and was unable to notice that no one at the conclusion had heard any of the lead-in. On the other hand, a good hymn session would attract attention – more SA bands would be welcomed!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
During the summer our SA band goes out into the main pedestrianised shopping centre for about 20 munites. We have a decent PA system rather than a megaphone so that our voices are not raised and sound totally normal.
We play a carefully-chosen mixture of modern songs and well-known hymns - Praise my Soul, Amazing Grace, O happy day, etc.
The speaking is basically a few Bible texts with little comments. People are given a booklet with the songs in them and the Bible verses we use - including the Come to me all you who labour...
Some people sit and listen, others stand, most walk past. We give out small books and the Salvation Army paper. Some lovely conversations are had.
It lasts 20 muinutes and then we disappear again.
Very low key.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
Do any shipmates have experience of cultures where it “works”?
<Nervously raises hand>
Quite some time ago now, I used to go on teams with Open Air Campaigners in France. Sketchboard evangelism could be very effective in drawing and holding a crowd and getting into conversations about the Gospel afterwards. Decades later, I still feel a certain sense of satisfaction walking past various street corners in Paris and elsewhere thinking "I preached the gospel here once".
I think the main key is for passersby to be put in a situation in which the means of presentation and the way one starts conversation with them are something they will feel comfortable with.
(At the opposite extreme, I well remember a megaphone-wielding bunch at an apparently empty English bus station at what was presumably the divinely appointed hour one Sunday afternoon. The atmosphere was much more one of a police siege than preaching the Gospel. I think people were boarding buses to just about anywhere rather than stay within earshot).
There are many reasons I've stopped doing this (although I still have two sketchboards in my garage). I'm less into method-based evangelism in general these days, but in addition, the authorities round here are increasingly trying to sanitise public space completely (and many plazas etc. are now private), so it seems like a fight not worth having compared to more socially acceptable means of evangelism.
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on
:
I think we tend to try and avoid anyone we don't know (or maybe sometimes those we do too ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
) talking to us or engaging with us when we are out and about. Even eye contact on a London tube train can make people feel uncomfortable.
I don't know if this tendency varies in different cultures but wonder if this adds to the problems of the street preachers aim.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
During the summer our SA band goes out into the main pedestrianised shopping centre for about 20 munites. We have a decent PA system rather than a megaphone so that our voices are not raised and sound totally normal.
We play a carefully-chosen mixture of modern songs and well-known hymns - Praise my Soul, Amazing Grace, O happy day, etc.
The speaking is basically a few Bible texts with little comments. People are given a booklet with the songs in them and the Bible verses we use - including the Come to me all you who labour...
Some people sit and listen, others stand, most walk past. We give out small books and the Salvation Army paper. Some lovely conversations are had.
It lasts 20 muinutes and then we disappear again.
Very low key.
I think the SA being well-known and having a good reputation helps here. Conversely, the JWs having a reputation for being an annoyance probably hinders them. I doubt they care though.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
Thanks for all those interesting contributions.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wonder if it worked better when even the largest cities had tiny populations compared to ours, and people tended to know one another, be intermarried, etc.
That's consistent with sociologist Rodney Stark's theories of Christianity/religion spreading via social networks. However I think an aversion to loud street preaching in the modern world is unlikely to be an urban phenomenon. My cousins live in a small town with lots of relational interconnections, but most of the cohort they went to church with as children have dropped out over the years, and are as indifferent or hostile to Christianity as any city dweller.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
I suspect that your megaphonic nuisance, like those who wave "John 3:16" placards at sporting events, is so far out of touch with those he's shouting at that his efforts are likely to be, on balance, counter-productive. If you wish to sell people something through fear it helps if the fear you seek to maximise has some relationship to your target's reality; attracting ridicule is not a sales technique I've ever heard recommended.
Yes, no matter what the message, efforts to persuade can be effective, counterproductive, or somewhere in between. Simply proclaiming a message out on the street is not necessarily harmful, but the shouting, negativity and fear inducement all are.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
During the summer our SA band goes out into the main pedestrianised shopping centre for about 20 minutes.
The SA still has a good reputation in most areas, thanks to all the practical work it does in the community, thus (even without the music) passers-by are much less threatened by their street presence compared to a man with a megaphone preaching hellfire (did William Booth preach hellfire & repentance back in the day?). So they are definitely an example of how to "do street preaching" without causing offence - back it up with endless good works!
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Quite some time ago now, I used to go on teams with Open Air Campaigners in France. Sketchboard evangelism could be very effective in drawing and holding a crowd and getting into conversations about the Gospel afterwards. Decades later, I still feel a certain sense of satisfaction walking past various street corners in Paris and elsewhere thinking "I preached the gospel here once".
Oh yes, I knew some people who were involved in sketchboard evangelism in Europe about 10 years ago - not sure if they're still doing that. I remember thinking at the time they were very brave!
And your post triggered another memory - visiting Ephesus on a secular tour, and being asked by another Christian lady (who had seen me reading my Bible on the bus) to read Acts 19 aloud at the entrance to the site (while we queued for tickets or something.) After I'd finished, my companion said another man in the queue had been paying close attention, while trying to look as though he wasn't listening. I had never before felt such a sense of the ultimate reality and transcendence of the word, as I did when reading that story aloud in the place where (I believe) it took place, and wondered if preachers get a similar high from good preaching - or even (if they have the personality) from any preaching (and the dangers of that are well shown in Elmer Gantry.)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's a Market Place thing, isn't it?
I think there's more mileage in the busking or short street drama approach. Also, I know folks who offer to pray for passers by. Not gratuitous approaches. They set up a station in a Market Square which offers prayer on request. Most folks just pass by, but some don't. Their choice. Seems OK.
Plus I like the street pastor approach which can often involve helping Saturday night clubbers to get home safely, not fall into a river and drown (this has happened) .
A good friend of ours worked as a night club pastor with club permission. She spent a fair bit of late night time in A & E, a lot more listening to sob stories, often in the women's loo. Much liked and respected, she'd earned the right to speak, didn't abuse it. Said she liked clubbers. On the other hand, a lot of uptight Christians made her nose bleed. Very committed in her faith.
I favour those sorts of approaches basically because they respect autonomy and the reality of on the ground situations. Not much given to placards and hitting strangers with words of warning. They pass by on the other side, shaking their heads. Know what's coming.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
My main comment is similar to Barnabas' so I won't repeat what he said! I agree with that POV.
One point, however, is that even if the message is a little odd, the message is allowed to be conveyed , they should have the right to speak it out.
Often the traditional street preacher will repel people. I would question if that is the right approach for our era. But would defend their right to preach and to state their views/beliefs.
Recently , there has, it seems, been cases where Christian preachers have been hassled by Police, for preaching. This IMHO , seems a bad direction to be heading in as a society.
Saul
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I'd be curious to hear what others would think of other religions/sects doing this.
How about - to take a very extreme and random point - the Church of Satan or Al Qaeda firebrand preaching on a soapbox?
Personally I can't stand the sound of a Salvation Army band. I think they're barely tolerated by almost everyone, religious or not.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'd be curious to hear what others would think of other religions/sects doing this.
How about - to take a very extreme and random point - the Church of Satan or Al Qaeda firebrand preaching on a soapbox?
Personally I can't stand the sound of a Salvation Army band. I think they're barely tolerated by almost everyone, religious or not.
That doesn't seem to be borne out by the response I'm afraid. Don't forget, a lot of towns have brass bands, Salvation or otherwise, and they are popular.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'd be curious to hear what others would think of other religions/sects doing this.
How about - to take a very extreme and random point - the Church of Satan or Al Qaeda firebrand preaching on a soapbox?
Personally I can't stand the sound of a Salvation Army band. I think they're barely tolerated by almost everyone, religious or not.
It wouldn't bother me. But then, I'm an American, and your example is pretty much the cliche always used to illustrate the First Amendment(freedom of speech etc).
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
]That doesn't seem to be borne out by the response I'm afraid. Don't forget, a lot of towns have brass bands, Salvation or otherwise, and they are popular.
Some places like them, in most they're barely tolerated. Some places actively hate them.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
]That doesn't seem to be borne out by the response I'm afraid. Don't forget, a lot of towns have brass bands, Salvation or otherwise, and they are popular.
Some places like them, in most they're barely tolerated. Some places actively hate them.
Did 'these places' have a vote??
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Hum. Well, let's see - wasn't it Worthing in Sussex where there was a famous battle?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Hum. Well, let's see - wasn't it Worthing in Sussex where there was a famous battle?
Oooh, you'll have to enlighten me.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
Google is your friend. Not everywhere likes the Salvation Army.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Hum. Well, let's see - wasn't it Worthing in Sussex where there was a famous battle?
Oooh, you'll have to enlighten me.
As pydseybare says, Google is your friend.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
ohhhhh - LOL ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I thought you meant now!
Yes, the opposition skeleton army is very much a part of SA folklore.
But it wasn't the band they were offended by, the skeleton army was really the 'militant wing' of the brewing trade. We were gaining so many converts who were giving up the drink that they were losing business and so they paid this 'army' to attack us.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
I find street preachers a complete turn-off and a very bad advert for Christianity. In the city where I work, they have a stall festooned with bible texts. Occasionally the local Muslims set up a stall next door - I don't know how Muslims view Islamic street preachers - I will enquire.
Surely the best advertisement for Christianity is actions, not words. Hence the success of the Salvation Army and Street Pastors mentioned up-thread. Preaching hell-fire and damnation will never convince anybody to turn to Christ - the words are not accompanied by any demonstration of Christian love in action. The great popularity of Pope Francis is because he is seen to practise what he preaches - the actions match the words.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
LucyP
I do feel a certain awkwardness about street preachers with their strident message. Let's be honest; on this website very few of us are going to be champions of hellfire preaching on the streets.
But OTOH, I'm glad these people are there. This is partly to do with my love of the urban environment; when I see groups of ordinary people daring to interact with the public I feel that's part of the energy and colour of city life. I don't like it when public spaces are left devoid of character.
In my city we also see Muslim proselytisers, usually in groups, handing out leaflets from trestle tables. This makes sense because the inner city areas have such a strong Muslim presence. I'm curious about the Christian ones, though. The regulars seem to be working freelance, so to speak, but every now and then you see a group who've obviously come on a special mission from a particular church. I had a chat with some of them once. The JWs with their stands are a new addition to the scene.
Does it 'work'? John Wesley thought it was worthwhile.... The preachers must hope they're planting a seed. The Birmingham City Mission produced a very interesting book about their history of evangelism, of which public preaching was an important part. They don't seem so visible now, though.
[ 12. January 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
ohhhhh - LOL
I thought you meant now!
Yes, the opposition skeleton army is very much a part of SA folklore.
But it wasn't the band they were offended by, the skeleton army was really the 'militant wing' of the brewing trade. We were gaining so many converts who were giving up the drink that they were losing business and so they paid this 'army' to attack us.
Also, people enjoy a drink. I'm not surprised brewers were hacked off with the SA for ruining their businesses, particularly since brewing was such a culturally important trade and also important for the baking trade (because brewers supplied barm to bakers). There's a lot of brewing in that part of Sussex (see also Harveys in Lewes) and for the SA to deprive people of their living when it wasn't inherently harmful is pretty shitty behaviour. On the side of the brewers here. Health benefits of beer.
And now I want a pint of Harveys best bitter ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Maybe you should read up a little on the Victorian Temperance movement.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The SA, street pastors and those offering prayer are mainly harmless and doing some good. There's no opportunity cost as they wouldn't be doing anything else more philanthropic.
The main harm they do is to themselves imagining that they are doing anything significant.
Damnationists theoretically create a vacuum for the good news to be preached second rate with words, but Yeats was right: no one can fill it: 'The best lack all conviction, while the worst - Are full of passionate intensity.' from The Second Coming. There's nothing wrong with that lack of conviction of course.
The market place is very wise. In Leicester, Islamic radicals in Gallowtree Gate get as much business as the damnationists. None. I'm glad to see that the buskers and beggars and Big Issue sellers get much more.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just wondering how one example from 140 years ago, dealing with beer-sellers and beer-enabled mobs, has anything to do with the present playing of brass-band music in a civilized setting, for a mere 20 minutes.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I find street preachers a complete turn-off and a very bad advert for Christianity ... Preaching hell-fire and damnation will never convince anybody to turn to Christ.
I have done a lot of street-preaching in my time and, like others here, am now thoroughly unconvinced of its value. Indeed, I genuinely find it an embarrassment and a switch-off, unless it is done very well.
The biggest problems to me are:
- speaking loudly in public doesn't attract people but repels them;
- people don't like being "got at" in public places;
- the language used by street preachers (and the topics they speak about) often make no sense at all to passers-by;
- you can't do a lengthy monologue sermon for people who may only be listening for a moment or two;
- so many street preachers look so dowdy and unattractive.
But - let's not stereotype it, it doesn't have to be "hell-fire and damnation", although it often is. There might just be a way of speaking of current issues and bringing the Faith to bear upon them.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I am not sure which makes me more uncomfortable: street preachers or Healing on the Streets.
Jengie
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe you should read up a little on the Victorian Temperance movement.
I'm well aware of the miserable do-gooders of that movement, thanks.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I once heard a street preacher whose message was nothing more than "The Lord God Jesus going to save you all, folks" repeated over and over. I won't say it affected me to any great degree, but I will say it has stayed with me for many, many years while other street preaching I've heard is long forgotten.
My point being that the briefer and more upbeat the message, the better chance it has of succeeding.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The biggest problems to me are:
- speaking loudly in public doesn't attract people but repels them;
- people don't like being "got at" in public places;
- the language used by street preachers (and the topics they speak about) often make no sense at all to passers-by;
- you can't do a lengthy monologue sermon for people who may only be listening for a moment or two;
- so many street preachers look so dowdy and unattractive.
But - let's not stereotype it, it doesn't have to be "hell-fire and damnation", although it often is. There might just be a way of speaking of current issues and bringing the Faith to bear upon them.
Some street preaching seems designed to engage with passers-by and some doesn't. You do see some street evangelists (usually the ones who've brought church members along to help them) engaged in conversation with passers-by. This is how Speakers' Corner-type interactions work. But other preachers simply have a message they want to convey (usually about hell-fire), and are going nineteen to the dozen to get it out. Generating a discussion with individuals clearly isn't their goal.
Regarding the appearance of street preachers, the hell-fire freelancers sometimes look a bit rough. But the church groups sometimes project an air of painful awkwardness. I don't think this helps either.
I think church groups would perhaps do better to man stalls at various community events, not preaching but handing out cake and information, and proactively offering to engage passers-by in conversation about Christianity and spirituality. And churches need to learn how to listen to ordinary people's issues and feelings rather than just preaching at them.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Recently , there has, it seems, been cases where Christian preachers have been hassled by Police, for preaching. This IMHO , seems a bad direction to be heading in as a society.
Yes - though the actual eventual charges are generally around creating a public nuisance by using a megaphone - usually after multiple warnings.
[ 12. January 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The same happened in church today. It always does. But more so when there's an infant baptism and the opportunity to be inclusive of unchurched people. Which in a vague anthropological sense occurred. A rite of passage was gone through, with good will warm 'n' fuzzy feel good.
The church mainly serves to believe on non-churchgoers' behalves. We're The Dude in The Big Lebowski that The Stranger feels good knowing are out there, but wants nothing else from us as we have nothing more he needs. Nothing.
I was disturbed at 'the prayers' which included the 'persecuted' Christians of the CAR. Subtle corrosion there. I'm disturbed at the meaninglessness of the Trinitarian formulas. There was some attempt to let people know that God loves them AND forgives them. A slip of paper to take away.
Forgives them what?
Still, never mind the preaching, feel the liturgy.
A friend noted afterwards the number of older men who were there on sufferance, for the sake of kinship. He longed for the golden age of muscular Christianity.
And another friend tried to encourage a single fifty something guy, recently terminally unemployed with five bereavements in as many years, who is suicidally hopeless. He failed completely of course. The guy can't bear to come next week. He said so.
Perversely I find it all encouraging as it's real, useless, the lamp post diversion laid bare and having only been there a month I'm already able to explore that positively, nakedly with my fellow utter inadequates whereas no conversation was possible at all in my previous char-evo megachurch for over four years.
The best service I've been to all year was Good Friday at the Cathedral. Totally sacramental. Mystical. Awesome music. Watching the faithful kiss the feet of the crucifix was a bit challenging.
Hmmmm.
I actually said to the missus before we went, on account of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I'd happily - PREFER to - go and be excluded from communion at a Roman church if it was across the road. I've thought that BEFORE him to be honest.
And I've learned from my mistake of Friday night. We were supposed to pair up with the more marginal and pray for them, show them the love of Jesus. I couldn't break in to the broken narrative of the guy alienated from his son and brother and that it was all Cameron's fault for letting the Romanians in. Didn't have anything to preach in my prayer. So said nowt. Rather than say some empty self-serving twaddle.
But I'm going to positively hopelessly find a way to encourage him for a moment next week. Perhaps the handshake and hug and acceptance knowing he's a serial sex offender and his knowing that I know will be enough. Again. If I HAVE to pray for him ... hmmmmmmmm. Promise, I'll find a way. It will start with acknowledging that I don't know what to pray.
Positively the worst bit of street preaching I encountered was a couple of summers ago when that guy who was schlepping round Britain with a lit up cross of expanded metal mesh, looking like a next generation shoulder launched missile, caused at least three churches to gather on a Sunday evening in Leicester Town Hall Square with no witnesses apart from the destitute who couldn't wait for a the free burger.
One church worker was horrified that they didn't realise what was among them, that they could lay down ALLLLLL of their troubles right there and then at the foot of the rocket launcher.
Just preach free burgers.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church groups would perhaps do better to man stalls at various community events, not preaching but handing out cake and information, and proactively offering to engage passers-by in conversation about Christianity and spirituality.
Like this, perhaps?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That looks like something that many mainstream churches could do, yes.
I know a Baptist church that participates faithfully in local community festivals. As well as their several stalls they have a prayer tent, and things for children to do. Some of their young people perform at the event. It's part of their wider engagement with the local community rather than being a one-off thing that doesn't reflect their normal identity.
Some churches make it their business to run stalls at New Age festivals and that sort of thing.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Mudfrog:
Maybe you should read up a little on the Victorian Temperance movement.
Jade C:
I'm well aware of the miserable do-gooders of that movement, thanks.
Jade, don't let pique at being pulled up short make you make a fool of yourself like this. Working effectively with empathy alongside problem drinkers is greatly helped by a commitment to abstinence amongst the workers themselves, as I've observed over 25 years ex-offenders rehab volunteering. The SA have a very lengthy, really honourable history of this kind of work, going right back to the times to which Mudfrog alludes. Alcohol=misery for a lot of people today too, though some of us are lucky enough to be able to take it (when we fancy a half) or leave it (when we don't). Seems some folks just 'get the taste', as they say around here; some are never seen again.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Mudfrog:
Maybe you should read up a little on the Victorian Temperance movement.
Jade C:
I'm well aware of the miserable do-gooders of that movement, thanks.
Jade, don't let pique at being pulled up short make you make a fool of yourself like this. Working effectively with empathy alongside problem drinkers is greatly helped by a commitment to abstinence amongst the workers themselves, as I've observed over 25 years ex-offenders rehab volunteering. The SA have a very lengthy, really honourable history of this kind of work, going right back to the times to which Mudfrog alludes. Alcohol=misery for a lot of people today too, though some of us are lucky enough to be able to take it (when we fancy a half) or leave it (when we don't). Seems some folks just 'get the taste', as they say around here; some are never seen again.
I don't really regard myself as having been pulled up short because I don't think I was wrong and Mudfrog is right here.
I object to the Temperence movement's aims - banning alcohol achieves nothing as Prohibition shows. I also object to teetotalism being part of the requirements for any Christian denomination. Giving up alcohol is not inherently part of being a Christian. If individual SA members believe that teetotalism is helpful for them as part of their work, that is their decision to make but IMO a blanket ban is infringing on an individual's right to make their own decisions regarding alcohol.
Catholics and Anglo-Catholics are hardly lacklustre in their achievements in the social gospel but don't feel the need to ban alcohol. They let adults make their own decisions. Why should alcohol be banned for everyone just because some people abuse it?
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I find street preachers a complete turn-off and a very bad advert for Christianity. In the city where I work, they have a stall festooned with bible texts. Occasionally the local Muslims set up a stall next door - I don't know how Muslims view Islamic street preachers - I will enquire.
Surely the best advertisement for Christianity is actions, not words. Hence the success of the Salvation Army and Street Pastors mentioned up-thread. Preaching hell-fire and damnation will never convince anybody to turn to Christ - the words are not accompanied by any demonstration of Christian love in action. The great popularity of Pope Francis is because he is seen to practise what he preaches - the actions match the words.
I wouldn't put a stall with literature and one-to-one conversations in the same category as a street preacher with a megaphone. I think stalls are culturally acceptable, regardless of their message, as they are nonconfrontational and easily ignored.
The one-to-one conversations can potentially lead to the administration of some aspect of Christian love - a listening ear, genuine compassion, or guidance towards practical help (eg if a church has a debt/finance advisory service for people who are struggling.)
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2
But OTOH, I'm glad these people are there. This is partly to do with my love of the urban environment; when I see groups of ordinary people daring to interact with the public I feel that's part of the energy and colour of city life. I don't like it when public spaces are left devoid of character.
Thanks SvitlanaV2, an interesting perspective as always!
I agree that diversity on display is one of the attractions of modern urban living. However if I share a creed with someone, it saddens me to see them "sharing the message" in a way that completely repels, unless there are also other people picking up the pieces ("good cop bad cop"). I don't think present-day non-Christians, in general, react to the "angry" street preachers by finding a gentle church that preaches love and reaches out to refugees and the marginalised.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan
I have done a lot of street-preaching in my time and, like others here, am now thoroughly unconvinced of its value. Indeed, I genuinely find it an embarrassment and a switch-off, unless it is done very well.
[.....]
But - let's not stereotype it, it doesn't have to be "hell-fire and damnation", although it often is. There might just be a way of speaking of current issues and bringing the Faith to bear upon them.
I agree, but I don't know how it would be done. "Current issues" can be a minefield as even Christians don't necessarily agree on the solutions, and speaking out may appear to align the speaker with a particular political party.
Most commercial advertising focuses on the individual's real or perceived needs - "it's all about YOU". So "Christian advertising" that suggests that Christianity can address issues like loneliness or lack of purpose is at least in synch with the times - but there needs to be a good church behind the preacher so that promises are delivered. And it risks degenerating into pop-pyschological self help.
Barnabas62's mention of things like street drama could also work, if well done, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
I agree that diversity on display is one of the attractions of modern urban living. However if I share a creed with someone, it saddens me to see them "sharing the message" in a way that completely repels, unless there are also other people picking up the pieces ("good cop bad cop"). I don't think present-day non-Christians, in general, react to the "angry" street preachers by finding a gentle church that preaches love and reaches out to refugees and the marginalised.
No, they probably don't. But it's the job of the 'gentle churches' to find their own way of speaking to people. It's a crowded market for ideologies and theologies out there, and that's not going to change. And in a big city the hell-fire street preacher isn't likely to be the only representation of Christianity that passers-by have come across.
There are small struggling mainstream churches that manage to grow, but it takes a lot of work. Evangelism, however that's defined, has to be seen as a priority, rather than as something that might just happen as a by-product of social activism, or whatever. The Baptists I mentioned above do a lot of work with Muslim refugees and other disadvantaged groups, but they do make it known that the gospel is behind (or in front of?) everything they do. This has borne fruit, even though the congregation isn't large.
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
I go to Tampa Florida and the surrounding area alot for various reasons and several years ago I walked by a preacher at a table by the beach offering information and pamphlets or what have you, so I stopped to chat. At first, I must have come off as a little combative, because he said, "can we just talk, here?" And I said sure, and I apologized and explained that I really like to talk about this stuff. We talked for about 45 minutes, while my sons waited patiently. (Sort of). It was a great conversation. We talked alot about books that he recommended I read in order to convert me, (or whatever) which I had already read, mostly.
I mention its the Tampa area because I think the area has alot of "street preachers". In Tampa, they are everywhere and people call them the "nice God people". They were offering water and coffee, and no judgement, from those leaving the bars. We had a flat tire that night and the nice God people helped us out by holding the flashlight for my husband while he changed the tire. They very clearly would have changed the tire for us, beings that they were younger and stronger but my husband seemed like he wanted to take care of it himself. Lol.
Yea, love those nice God people. I like the street preachers I've met.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Racking my memory for Open Air Campaigners doctrine, a couple of points.
I think there's an excellent case to be made for the public announcement of the Good News. Yes it needs to be in a culturally acceptable way (I was preaching on Acts 17 yesterday!), but the pressure in secularised societies is to push expressions of faith behind private doors, and some resistance to this is I think a good thing.
As I indicated in my previous post, I also agree that having a format that enables one-to-one conversations is massively different from the megaphone model.
(Actually, I am against PA in church for pretty much the same reasons. Our venue is just about small enough for people to be comfortably heard if they speak up, and our band, which includes a drummer, is prohibited - in Christian love - from using PA, with the exception of the bass player. But this is a tangent).
Sketchboard evangelism combines these two aspects by having a preacher in front of a sketchboard doing an engaging presentation with the help of some very basic artistic visual support as he paints a summary of his message. He is accompanied by a team. A few team members face the preacher, the rest keep off somewhere, only joining the ranks if a crowd builds. At the end of the presentation, team members turn to the person next to them and say "I'm with the person who just spoke. What do you think of what s/he said?"
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
There is an interesting divide in my town in the mid 19 century regarding the Temperance movement.
We had a single large industry which employed a lot of people. There was a 'mission' to these people, set up by a non-conformist group, but evenually taken on by an Anglican foundation*. This was always a lay movement, and ran from a very run-down shack for getting on for 60 years.
The Temperance Movement, in contrast, was run by ordained clergy - largely from the Anglican church, but also other large churches in the town.
Reading newspaper articles from the time, the suggestion appears to be that the mission was of very low status, whereas the Temperance meetings were of much higher status - reflecting, perhaps, the idea of a 'worthy' and an 'unworthy' poor.
I don't think there was a Salvation Army corps here during that period, but I suppose the interesting thing for me (that I hadn't really appreciated before) was that there was so pronounced a divide between different groups - who may have all believed in the idea of promoting teetotalism. It might be interesting to see how the Salvation Army fit within this expression, given that it appears that on the whole the movement was seen with some scorn by the religious authorities of the time.
*predictably the non-conformists and Anglicans fell out, and eventually the former built their own mission house not far from the existing mission.
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I think the main problem with this kind of street evangelism is that it doesn't work in our culture. Perhaps people once would stand and listen and/or argue with someone saying something interesting or preposterous in the street, but I think this just makes people angry today.
It is interesting to see the JWs regularly put out their stall in my town. These seems to consist of a mobile magazine stand of the watchtower, with members (presumably) sitting nearby on a bench waiting to engage with anyone who is interested.
It is hard to imagine that this has any effect on anyone in my town. But then perhaps the JWs have a higher tolerance for sitting and waiting for a long time for the single lost sheep to make themselves known.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I don't think TSA was actually a part of the Temperance Movement as such but we very much anti-drink because it caused so much poverty and hardship.
There is the well-known story of a man who had been converted and was being scorned by someone who asked him if he really believed that Jesus turned water into wine. His answer was that he didn't know but that in his house Jesus had turned beer into furniture.
What town are you in?
[ 13. January 2014, 07:48: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Open air services - rather than just a random 'manic street preacher' - can actually have unintended benefits.
Last year we went to the street most Sundays and on a number of occasions there were two large, older men who sat on the benches and listened and took part in the meetings by singing. After the band had gone I spoke to them and discovered that they were sex offenders who were not allowed to go to church and for whom this short time of worship was very special.
A couple of weeks later we had cancelled the open air service for some reason or other and they came to the door of the church to ask if we were coming out, they'd come especially.
I have to say I was quite moved.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Most Shipmates who have posted on this thread have, at best, suggested that street preaching is no longer an appropriate way of communicating the Christian message in contemporary culture. Some have recoiled in horror at the very idea! - and I can see why.
Now, there have been a few hints as to how street preaching might be "updated". But these beg the wider question of how one makes any meaningful communication of the Christian message to the many people who lie totally outside the ambit of the Church. Clearly one has to "witness" in a way which engages with them - but how might one do that when one has virtually no common religious ground or shared language with them?
By the way - on a rather different line - I wonder how many street preachers are motivated by a sense of "divine ought-ness" - "Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!" - and even guilt rather than a simple desire to get a message across? And how many are prepared to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of their ministry rather than blaming failure on people's "hardness of heart" or taking comfort in the thought that "seeds have been sown"?
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Most Shipmates who have posted on this thread have, at best, suggested that street preaching is no longer an appropriate way of communicating the Christian message in contemporary culture. Some have recoiled in horror at the very idea! - and I can see why.
Now, there have been a few hints as to how street preaching might be "updated". But these beg the wider question of how one makes any meaningful communication of the Christian message to the many people who lie totally outside the ambit of the Church. Clearly one has to "witness" in a way which engages with them - but how might one do that when one has virtually no common religious ground or shared language with them?
ISTM that there is the potential for a variety of approaches for those who wish to raise awareness of the Christian message among people who never come to church. Each different style can be tailored to a different group of people. The SA open air service might work for the (diminishing) group of people who have some sort of church background but who have drifted away without hostility; drama or sketchboarding might attract a different type of audience. And stalls allow one-to-one conversations, with the passer-by modifying the agenda as needed.
quote:
By the way - on a rather different line - I wonder how many street preachers are motivated by a sense of "divine ought-ness" - "Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!" - and even guilt rather than a simple desire to get a message across?
I think the guilt/obligation dynamic can be a motivator for any preacher, not just street preachers, but I would hope the purely guilt-driven are in the minority. Unless they are a genuine prophet of the Old Testament variety!
quote:
And how many are prepared to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of their ministry rather than blaming failure on people's "hardness of heart" or taking comfort in the thought that "seeds have been sown"?
Evaluation of overall effectiveness is difficult unless you're pushing people to "make a decision" so you can count them. The Open Air Campaigners' method seems to have inbuilt low-key evaluation, with the "sidekicks" engaging bystanders in conversation, allowing for feedback - and individual application of the topic.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And how many [street preachers] are prepared to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of their ministry rather than blaming failure on people's "hardness of heart" or taking comfort in the thought that "seeds have been sown"?
The Birmingham City Mission book implies that open-air preaching does attract regulars, which is unsurprising if the preacher and shoppers have their routines and favourite spots. And the preacher might develop a rapport with some of the tradespeople, police or others who are regularly in the vicinity. I normally see the same one or two preachers when I go into town. The noisy freelancers are more faithful to their 'street vocation' than the fly-by-night church groups, which is a shame, since the latter would surely be able to do more than just shout at people.
It occurs to me that for some people listening to an open-air sermon could serve as their 'church'. The BCM's heyday was pre-Fresh Expressions, but it seems as though some people with problems who might otherwise have felt unsuited to a normal church environment found the BCM's ministry helpful. Pastoral connections were formed.
Basically, though, a street mission can't be a entirely selfish one, can it? You can't count the number of converts, or church members, or people who've come to sit on your church pews. The long-term outcome for almost everyone who passes by will be a mystery to the preachers. They have to leave that in God's hands.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
My experience of street preachers has been entirely negative: screaming, judgmental and daft.
*Street preachers brought by bus to our university from a "Bible college" in another city, lined up along the major walkways on campus just blathering and waving their Bibles at passers-by.
*Street preachers screaming "Whore!" and "Whoremonger!" at passers-by, and telling women they were going to hell for wearing pants and short hair.
*Street preacher with papier-mache' ball and chain around his leg, screaming, "Jesus will free you from your burden of sin!"
*Street preacher physically grabbing at a female passer-by who told him she wasn't interested in what he was going on about.
*Street preachers gathering on the main street of our local town every Saturday morning during tourist season, glaring at walkers and passing cars, carrying placards reading "Repent!" and "The wages of sin is death!" Several of the men (God forbid that the womenfolk utter a word, which I suppose is a blessing for the few pedestrians who choose to run this gauntlet) preaching from their Bibles to...well...no one, most of the time, just into the air, because it's a small town.
In my opinion, these people love being ignored and "persecuted," i.e., challenged about their behaviors, because it makes them feel set apart, martyred and special; and their "preaching" is a kind of auto-hypnosis, more than any sort of intelligent, engaged attempt at connecting with other human beings.
And -- their theology, as well as their methodology, tends to suck.
[ 15. January 2014, 21:25: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Wow. To British eyes, that reads as a very American, and indeed, a very exotic experience. Our lonely and generally insignificant street preachers would be utterly taken aback by such a scenario!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
It is, I think, a product of American extroversion, plus the polarizing, conflated religious and political zealotry that's been in ascendancy in our society for the past 40 years, plus the cultural DNA of the non-mainline churches here. Whatever it is, it ain't pretty, and it certainly has nothing to do with "good news."
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
At a purely anecdotal level...
A few years ago, some of us at church were sniggering rather patronisingly about an obscure group who regularly preached outside a local supermarket.
Then a woman piped up and said, "I got converted by hearing them".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Kaplan Corday
That's encouraging! I wonder if she ever went and told them?
To a certain extent I'm sure our disapproval of street preachers has a touch of snobbishness about it. The individuals and groups who do this kind of thing aren't usually affiliated with the sensible historical churches that produce learned theologians. They don't build cathedrals or even grand churches of architectural merit. Their preachers haven't been ordained or trained by a well-respected body....
The American situation apart, as a Methodist I find it hard to condemn these preachers, though; 'vile' street preaching is what made Methodism famous, even though mainstream Methodism soon became as respectable as any other church. These preachers might have a strange theology but they go where we refuse to go, so how can we complain?
The other thing that occurred to me is that these preachers are always men, despite the increasing number of women in the pulpit and the preponderance of women in the pews. I find that interesting.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'd be curious to hear what others would think of other religions/sects doing this.
How about - to take a very extreme and random point - the Church of Satan or Al Qaeda firebrand preaching on a soapbox?
Personally I can't stand the sound of a Salvation Army band. I think they're barely tolerated by almost everyone, religious or not.
I find the local Hare Krishnas to be either pleasantly cheerful or mildly annoying. It depends on my mood. The one time someone tries to give me a Hindu tract I politely told him I was already devout and wasn't interested. His attempts at persuasion were entertaining, in an amateur anthropologist sort of way.
Doesn't bother me. They have the right to make noise and speak within a certain level, and I have the right to keep walking. Christians annoy me a little more because I feel like they're misrepresenting me. I occasionally have to stifle an urge to start a debate in public.
[ 16. January 2014, 01:08: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
There is an interesting divide in my town in the mid 19 century regarding the Temperance movement.
We had a single large industry which employed a lot of people. There was a 'mission' to these people, set up by a non-conformist group, but evenually taken on by an Anglican foundation*. This was always a lay movement, and ran from a very run-down shack for getting on for 60 years.
The Temperance Movement, in contrast, was run by ordained clergy - largely from the Anglican church, but also other large churches in the town.
Reading newspaper articles from the time, the suggestion appears to be that the mission was of very low status, whereas the Temperance meetings were of much higher status - reflecting, perhaps, the idea of a 'worthy' and an 'unworthy' poor.
I was just reading a book on Chicago history, and this was exactly the conflict between the WASP protestants and the immigrant Catholics in the 19th century.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder how many street preachers are motivated by a sense of "divine ought-ness" - "Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!" - and even guilt rather than a simple desire to get a message across?
I don't think guilt was ever a factor for me, but I think there is something in Paul's declaration. Open air preaching is a challenge but, depending on your personality, can be very fulfilling, as I posted upthread (hopefully without being a complete turn-off as some have described).
It's quite something to get to the heart of the gospel in your presentation and see in your audience people who have quite clearly never ever heard anything remotely like the gospel in their lives, and be gripped by it.
Paul says a lot more about the gospel being the power of God for salvation and also about preaching being the mad method by which God has chosen to save. I think there's something in that which the post-modern church is in danger of forgetting.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's quite something to get to the heart of the gospel in your presentation and see in your audience people who have quite clearly never ever heard anything remotely like the gospel in their lives, and be gripped by it.
Three things there:
1. Yes, if done well that kind of evangelism can be the (?only) way of reaching people who would never darken the door of the church - I said as much upthread.
2. Clearly, when what you describe happens. you are genuinely communicating to folk. Problem is, many street preachers don't do that but simply preach "at" people using their own language and their own agenda. That's a waste of time. It may be "mad" to preach in the open air ... but there's a right and a wrong kind of madness!
3. Do I detect a hint of the Holy Spirit's work in opening people's eyes and bringing comprehension?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
At a purely anecdotal level...
A few years ago, some of us at church were sniggering rather patronisingly about an obscure group who regularly preached outside a local supermarket.
Then a woman piped up and said, "I got converted by hearing them".
Except that a lot of absolute rubbish in Christian culture -- whether heretical preachers, antisocial behaviors, studied ignorance, etc. -- is excused with the attitude, "Well, as long as it brings SOMEONE to Jesus..." People are brought to Jesus DESPITE, not BECAUSE, of irresponsible/poorly articulated/just plain wrong words and behaviors on the part of Christians.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
My impression is that people are brought to faith in all sorts of ways.
The sociologists say that the very strict forms of faith often generate more conversations, even though strictness drives quite a few people away too. However, some of the converts do migrate to more mainstream forms of faith later when their faith matures, and so long as this 'processing' continues perhaps it's unwise for mainstream Christians to protest too much about bad theology elsewhere; they might only be helping to stem the supply of people to their own churches in the long run.
[ 17. January 2014, 01:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
I work in Harlem, the famous African-American section of New York City, where there dozens of churches and almost as many street preachers. Religion is taken very seriously there. Still, almost everyone goes out of their way to avoid the street corner evangelists, regarding them as either hustlers or loonies. And if you listen to them for any length of time it's clear that most aren't wrapped too tightly. I suspect many are mentally ill.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There was a period when our local Exclusive Brethren took to preaching in the pedestrian areas of our local towns, and it didn't come naturally to them. The men took turns, holding their Bibles, and speaking quietly of repentance and accepting Jesus, while the headscarfed women stood behind in prayerful pose. I don't know what they would have done with potential converts, given the closed nature of their worship. Nobody I saw was taking notice, though I smiled at them as they included parents of pupils.
The most inappropriate lot I saw was in Peckham, a group of young men of the 6th Form/Uni Freshers age range, fit types with the bearing of the cadet force, standing on a very raised platform, well above the crowds, with a megaphone, and the usual message of accept Jesus or go to Hell. They were all white. Most of the crowd, which was taking very little notice, was black. The sort of black, that, come Sunday, would be dressed up in their best, suits, dresses, hats or headwraps, and gathering at one of the multitudes of churches which open along the sides of shops in that area. The lads would have been doing much better down on the level with a trestle table meeting the passers-by eye to eye and learning something.
[ 17. January 2014, 13:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
To my shame, I once accepted an invitation to take part in an open-air service in Henley-on-Thames one hot Sunday afternoon.
We went down to the meadows by the river where people were chatting, sunbathing, playing games, eating ice-cream and so on. The leaders of the group - all in sombre suits - gathered around the preacher, all facing inwards, who then proceeded to harangue the folk around (who clearly didn't want to listen).
It was so culturally inappropriate, and so apparently judgemental of people daring to enjoy themselves in the sunshine, that I edged away as far as I could. I have rarely felt so embarrassed in my whole life!
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I've never seen street preaching have any kind of success, at least where I live.
I do think visible witness out on the streets can be a good thing. This Ash Wednesday our priest stood out on the sidewalk by our church and made imposition of ashes available to anyone who wanted. A few people did stop to receive and were very appreciative.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Al Eluia
Of course, not every church will be able to offer this because it's not part of their tradition. And many people won't have a clue what it's about. I'd feel a bit strange about it and I'm only a Methodist!
I think the basic reason why hell-fire preaching is inappropriate is because that sort of thing simply doesn't make an impression on people today. And as has already been said, sometimes the preachers just come across as a being mentally ill.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
[...]
Still, almost everyone goes out of their way to avoid the street corner evangelists, regarding them as either hustlers or loonies. And if you listen to them for any length of time it's clear that most aren't wrapped too tightly. I suspect many are mentally ill.
Once upon a time they might have been "Holy Fools". All those old Greek saints who sat on pillars or wandered around mumbling unintelligible prayers, or livd in caves and had visions, were probably just as crazy.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the basic reason why hell-fire preaching is inappropriate is because that sort of thing simply doesn't make an impression on people today. And as has already been said, sometimes the preachers just come across as a being mentally ill.
I think we have a sort of cultural accquired immunity to Christianity. A sort of vaccination. Like cowpox making you immune to smallpox.
People have enough folk-memory of it to think they know what Christianity is and think they've rejected it. But most of them don't and haven't. School RE lessons and Christmas carols on the TV and half-remembered stories your granny told you when you were a kid make up a big enough infection to make you immune to a full dose.
So evangelistic methods that worked on those who saw Christianity as new and weird might just bounce off those who see it as old and boring.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think we have a sort of cultural accquired immunity to Christianity. A sort of vaccination. Like cowpox making you immune to smallpox.
People have enough folk-memory of it to think they know what Christianity is and think they've rejected it. But most of them don't and haven't. School RE lessons and Christmas carols on the TV and half-remembered stories your granny told you when you were a kid make up a big enough infection to make you immune to a full dose.
So evangelistic methods that worked on those who saw Christianity as new and weird might just bounce off those who see it as old and boring.
I agree entirely ... but street preaching may not be that method!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
It seems that Jesus never had any trouble attracting and keeping an audience's attention, though not all of those became loyal followers. The preaching-to-unconverted-groups in Acts often seems aimed at a particular audience with a background level of understanding in common (such as those attending the Jewish synagogue, or alternatively the philosophers on the Areopagus). Is street preaching more likely to be effective when there is a uniform culture, so that the message can be appropriately targeted? Do any shipmates have experience of cultures where it “works”?
I don't know if anyone's addressed this part of the OP yet. It would be interesting to hear about street preaching outside of Britain and the USA.
It also occurs to me that it's not just audiences that have changed, but also the preachers themselves. Jesus was a charismatic man and obviously a skillful preacher. We're not in an age of such preachers, at least in the UK; and indeed, we're suspicious of any preacher who seems to be like that, since for most of us our only cultural reference point for such people today is the untrustworthy televangelist. Today's street preachers have neither charismatic presence nor the calm pastoral persona that we expect from religious leaders - i.e., the clergy.
Yes, the age of the freelance Christian leader is long past in the indigenous British culture, which means that any non-affiliated person speaking up for Christianity is likely to lack authority; schismatics and break-away groups attract little attention. Public Christian spokesmen are now expected to be backed by a reputable denomination, and such denominations don't do street preaching on the whole.
[ 17. January 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I think it's important to note that street preaching was, so I gather, very much part of Jesus' world, whereas most cultures nowadays have different modes of public communication. Public proclamation of the gospel of Jesus is IMO very much something Christians should do, but that doesn't mean specifically street preaching. That was simply the way people spread new ideas and messages in 1st century Palestine and the wider Roman Empire.
Mind you, the drama-based approach that Eutychus (and others?) mentioned upthread sounds pretty neat and with a far greater chance of not being horrifically jarring in most present-day cultures! So perhaps on-street approaches can still work, just with a bit of a twist...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yet street preaching - or an outdoor presence, let's say - is appealing in that it doesn't necessarily require access to lots of expensive gadgets, which not everyone owns. Nor does it require great technical expertise on the part of the preachers.
Moreover, the internet is such a crowded medium that most people won't have any interest in looking for Christian information there unless they already have some sort of connection with Christianity, or their curiosity has already been whetted some other way.
Street preaching is immediate, potentially allows for face-to-face interaction, and reaches people who wouldn't look for religious material or contact elsewhere. It's also very local - it's great to have a website or Facebook account that could potentially reach millions, but if you primarily want to be a 'local church for local people' (since not everyone is willing or able to drive to church) then having an occasional outdoor presence in the area as part of a wider commitment to the community might be very useful.
However, I think it all depends on what a particular church or evangelist is trying to achieve. And on the demographic that they're trying to reach, probably.
[ 17. January 2014, 20:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, the internet is such a crowded medium that most people won't have any interest in looking for Christian information there unless they already have some sort of connection with Christianity, or their curiosity has already been whetted some other way.
True, but... People can have a public profile (local or wider than that) that doesn't just rest on their being a Christian. At the local level, I'm thinking of people like community activists, maybe local councillors, shop owners etc. - people who are in the public eye and can proclaim their faith in Jesus through that existing communication channel.
Maybe this kind of approach is better suited to most cultures today, given that people (on the whole, in the UK at least) are less trusting of authorities and more receptive to ideas coming from people they already have a connection with.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
People can have a public profile (local or wider than that) that doesn't just rest on their being a Christian. At the local level, I'm thinking of people like community activists, maybe local councillors, shop owners etc. - people who are in the public eye and can proclaim their faith in Jesus through that existing communication channel.
I'm sure this happens in some cases, probably in fairly homogenous small communities, and in some fields of work rather than others. But British Christians usually want to separate their religious identity from their professional identity, at least for public consumption. This is understandable - they're not paid to be religious, and in a pluralistic society they have to be acceptable to people of all religious beliefs and none. Appearing to evangelise on the job has got some Christians into trouble, as you know.
IME Churches don't normally give their members advice as to how they might share their faith without causing problems - or offer to support them if they do have problems. But some churches do take 'friendship evangelism' seriously. The Alpha Course mostly relies on the recommendation of family members and close friends.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...British Christians usually want to separate their religious identity from their professional identity, at least for public consumption. This is understandable - they're not paid to be religious, and in a pluralistic society they have to be acceptable to people of all religious beliefs and none. Appearing to evangelise on the job has got some Christians into trouble, as you know.
Yeah, I think you're right. I didn't mean explicitly evangelising on the job, though; more like making it known that you're a Christian and then seeking to develop relationships and generally be good to people through that. Not so much with clients / patients as that's fraught with ethical issues, but with colleagues I think it's feasible.
I wonder as well if British Christians are a bit more keen than we ought to be to keep our religious and professional identities distinct. I'm not saying we should go around proclaiming our faith to everyone we meet - 'Hello, I'm Kevin. Pleased to meet you. I'm a Christian, by the way.' ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
But I think we need a pretty good reason not to be upfront about our faith, like when we're asked to say a bit about ourselves or when we're having the 'how was your weekend' Monday morning conversation.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think it's often the other way around; we sometimes need a good reason to do so....
In one sense it's because Christianity is so privatised now. Telling someone you go to church is almost like admitting to something terribly personal, and you're not always in the mood to be judged on something that's an integral part of your identity. But it does depend on who you're talking to.
I think being a street preacher would be simpler in some ways. You've psyched yourself up, prayed hard, prepared your theme and your answers to a range of objections, and wrapped up warmly. (And if it all goes pear-shaped you won't have to see those people ever again, hopefully!) Maybe we should always be so well-prepared (1 Peter 3:15). But the Christian community doesn't seem to expect this or give much encouragement. It's not the subject of sermons, and small group discussion can be very vague, IME.
I can almost understand how some people end up becoming freelance street preachers, doing their own thing without waiting for any theological guidance or encouragement from the churches. In some churches you'd be waiting for ever.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
It seems that Jesus never had any trouble attracting and keeping an audience's attention
Are we missing something else, too? Many (most) street preachers seem to model themselves on OT prophets or John the Baptist, telling people they need to repent and generally giving them a hard time.
Now I don't deny that Jesus did something similar with some folk (the Scribes etc.); but with the general public he was far more engaging, often using stories and parables to make his point.
I grant that he was talking to an audience who shared many of his religious assumptions (although even then folk did struggle with some of the meanings). Perhaps we are too earnest in trying to "preach the full Gospel" and it would be better to tell enigmatic stories and hope to engage people in personal conversation afterwards.
After all, why should people listen to an anonymous stranger who seems to be interested only in telling them off, using religious jargon they scarcely understand?
[ 18. January 2014, 08:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
Yes, enigmatic stories and dogmatic, succinct "explanations of the gospel" seem to be poles apart - though I wonder if they need to be.
I don't know why Jesus in his explanation of the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 implied that he was being deliberately obscure.
quote:
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [....]
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. [....]
Was Jesus being obscure here just because the Passion & Resurrection & Ascension hadn't happened yet? And so are the sermons in Acts much more clear because the mystery has now been revealed and therefore must be proclaimed as fact rather than promise?
Or did the preachers in Acts partly model themselves on Jesus in their use of stories? We only have brief, summarised reports of a minority of their sermons - but certainly some of the sermons (like Stephen's) retell the story of the Jews with a new "twist" at the end. Tom Wright's book on Acts emphasises this. Also, the parables of Jesus would have been repeated as part of the oral history that preceded the written gospels (though could have been taught to people after their conversion, not before.) Given that Paul could speak for hours at a stretch, perhaps there were stories within his sermons - the stories and the dogma don't have to be mutually exclusive, as the rest of the Bible makes clear!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
Some of the sermons (like Stephen's) retell the story of the Jews with a new "twist" at the end.
That of course was speaking to Jewish people who shared the story. What common story might we be able to use today - something from the News or from a Soap, perhaps? Problem is, most Street Preachers are in thrall to both Biblical literalism and Propositional Theology.
[ 18. January 2014, 10:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
Simon Schama wrote a book about the history of the Netherlands in the 1600s called "The Embarrassment of Riches".
He says that after the "Dutch" - a collection of disparate villagers, fisherfolk, farmers, merchants, bankers, university city dwellers, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, humanists, speakers of multiple languages (eg Frisian) - became independent from the Spanish, there was a need for a narrative to draw them all together into a united nation.
They needed to answer the questions about themselves as a group: Who are we? Where have we come from? Where are we going?
Schama says that the Dutch drew on both ancient legends of their ancestors standing against the Romans, and even more strongly, from the Biblical narratives of slavery (to the Spanish), redemption into a promised land, and safety (from flood, famine and foe) as long as they obeyed the Covenant of obedience to God. While individuals in the Netherlands were free to ignore "the covenant" and live as they pleased, the "official" storyline was strong enough to bind people together in cooperation, especially since floods, disease outbreaks and war were recurring threats.
In general, I suspect that Westerners in the 21st century answer questions of identity at an individual level (often defining themselves by their "choices" in consumption - ipod music, branded gear, house design - as well as career and significant relationships) but not on a group level. Perhaps this leaves a void that many people are not even aware of - do sociologists still take the concept of anomie seriously? If so, this could be what the stories need to address.
I think the actual content of the stories -whether myths from ancient Greece, legends from China, soap opera storylines or celebrity biographies - is less important than the application. And for people to keep listening up to the application, the story teller has to be someone engaging who can hold the audience's attention.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
"The embarrassment of Riches" is a wonderful book. I'll note that the Dutch unification trod very carefully around religion and the religious covenants. There were a lot of Catholics in various cities and Protestants in others, and the late unpleasantness with Spain. The Jews and Anabaptists found a tolerance that was rare in Europe because there was a need not to be dogmatic about having the right religion.
Schama mentions the story of the pump room; a cell with a treadmill pump that could be flooded so that the idlers imprisoned there could chose to pump or drown. It's not clear if it actually existed, but the metaphor did. Holland was a raft that needed cooperation to keep from drowning. That's the real national myth, that success came through communal effort, be it dykes or global trade that was making enormous amounts of money. As you wander the city, you're going to run into people of different or no religion and you can preach but you don't have a captive audience.
He also describes the ennui that came with the money. While some were devout in their religious community, a lot of people were trying to decide what the meaning of life was now that it was not the struggle to get enough to eat all winter. This is the beginning of the modern age. Money and the distraction of luxuries brought a discontent. This may seem familiar to those who see an indifferent reaction to street preaching. There were certainly religious people, but a large part of the city street (and canal) life was secular; the bustle of trade and the moving of people to their individual houses and workshops.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
To me, as an observer, it seems like many street preachers' motivation is less about evangelism and more about Following a Rule: "Preach the Gospel to all nations." "I hear and obey." Gold star on the heavenly merit chart for them?
It seems to me that if they actually cared about evangelism they'd be engaged in relationship-building activities in the community that reflect God's love and grace...and that if they had a healthy understanding of God's grace they'd do those things out of love and gratitude, not out of fear of getting it wrong OR fear of "losing" someone (not in their pay grade).
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I do recall reading somewhere that there's also a popular eschatology that believes that the 2nd Coming can only happen after everyone on the earth has at least heard the gospel.
So for some it seems an incentive to preach without even bothering to try to change people.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0