Keith asked about materials used in evangelism.  Obviously giving a Bible and reading through a Gospel is excellent.  It’s great to invite someone to sit down over coffee and go through a study of the Gospel.  Check out this comparison of several different studies of evangelistic bible studies.  It’s from the 9Marks website — I think Greg prepared it a few years ago.  I’ve used Christianity Explained — the one that we’ve taught through at Third — and found it really helpful in clarifying the Gospel and giving people an opportunity to ask questions.  I think Christianity Explained is out of print.  It goes through the Gospel of Mark.

Does contact evangelism not include a stranger hearing the gospel in a Sunday morning Service?  Joe Somebody walks into 3rd Ave and hears the gospel without a personal relationship with a single soul in the church.  Greg, do you categorize this as contact evangelism?  Maybe the difference with this example and a “contact” in your local coffee shop is the person has volitionally engaged the gospel by coming to church. 

Should there be restraint on those who are passionately proclaiming the gospel left and right?  I love the zeal of some of my friends who make evey personal encounter an evangelism opportunity.  Maybe sometimes it is throwing pearls to swine??  Ray Comfort says to begin a conversation with “feeler” questions to see if the person is interested in “spiritual things.”  I tend to agree.  A witness should  depend upon the Spirit to provide discernment for each situation. 

I certainly hope this does not sound like “quenching” the Spirit. 

First, if contact evangelism is going to take place, I continue to think it would be best to take place on a college campus or on a beach during spring break. By the way, I mention spring break because I was thinking of short term mission trips taken to engage college students. Otherwise, you are right, the beach is just like the mall, except hotter, sandier, and more water.

Second, when contact evangelism takes place, it is of more benefit to the evangelist than the listener because, “thrilling” and “exhilirating” notwithstanding, it helps the evangelist in a pressure-situation articulate the gospel clearly and engage in a short-apologetic discussion. This type of experience will undoubtedly be useful when having longer, less pressure filled discussions over coffee.

Third, given one and two, if I have to choose an evangelistic strategy (and we all do) I’m going to seek to build and invest in relationships and not choose contact evangelism.

Fourth, to push back — Greg, are you saying that if relational evangelism is better, contact evangelism is illegitimate?

Should I end this four point post with a poem and prayer?

Two things I should say clearly:  First, I am fully convinced that part of our job in evangelism is to speak hard truth into people’s lives, truth that will be “drastic and shattering,” as Packer put it.  I’m just arguing that there’s a better way of speaking that hard truth than contact evangelism.
 
Second, I know that the lines between these things can be very blurry.  So if you’re reading all this and thinking, “Hey, I do CE, but I’m doing it in a way that avoids these drawbacks you’re talking about,” I’d love to hear your experience.  Or also if you just flat disagree with me on this.  gdgilbert@gmail.com.

AMen, I agree with almost everything you say, but I want to push you on it a little bit, too—and maybe you, too, Kgoad, about the role of contact evangelism.  Here’s the question that comes to mind:  Would you encourage someone who’s doing contact evangelism to seriously consider changing their evangelistic strategy?
 
Now let me go ahead and answer my own question.  I think I would.  And one of the reasons is AMen’s statement that contact evangelism is more useful for the evangelist than for the hearer.  I wasn’t sure whether you meant that as a reason for or against CE, but it seems to me that’s a bad thing.  It is thrilling and exhilarating to screw up the courage to witness to a perfect stranger, but if that’s not the best way to do evangelism in the first place, then that feeling of empowerment is, well, less valuable, isn’t it?  Besides, I think it’s even more thrilling, exhilarating, and empowering to see a genuine friend become a Christian as a result of your consistent witness.
 
Another reason is that in my experience with CE (and it’s not insignificant), I think there’s a tendency to focus more on getting the gospel said than on getting the gospel heard.  I don’t mean to say that’s true of everyone who does and loves CE, but in my experience it’s been generally true—the point is to get the Gospel out, because God’s word will not return to Him void.  You lead them through a full Gospel presentation, press for a decision, and then “give it to God,” trusting that seeds have planted.  And then you count yourself faithful because the words of the Gospel have fallen from your lips, whether the person really heard them or not.  Well, okay.  But doesn’t it make more sense to have some genuine friendship established first with the person?  (BTW, I think it takes varying amounts of time to do that.  Maybe 5 minutes with some folks, maybe a month with other people.)  That way, real lines of communication are open, and so the person is much more likely to hear what you have to say as genuine love and concern, and not as a sales pitch.
 
A couple of other minor points:  When Aldrich says CE is “legitimate” because “many have found Christ through this approach,” that strikes me as a weak argument.  People have found Christ through all kinds of approaches, but that doesn’t by itself make those approaches right or good.  As for his third point, I just don’t buy it.  For one thing, the focus is again on the evangelist instead of on the listener.  And what does he mean by saying that CE allows a “higher percentage” of believers to meet non-Christians?  If they really sat down and thought about it, my guess is most Christians know plenty of non-Christians.  It’s just a matter of being intentionally Christian in those relationships.
 
Finally, I can agree that some places are better venues for CE than others.  But I think I would argue that in any setting, there is a better evangelistic strategy than CE.  The beach, honestly, strikes me as no different from a shopping mall.  People are not there to engage in an exchange of ideas, and if you walk up to someone on a beach, it’s most likely going to be seen as an intrusion.  A college campus is different, yes.  But I’d say that even there, there are better strategies.  Get involved in some not-specifically-Christian groups, for example.  Pick out a social action group and join it.  Join a community service group.  Get involved in student government.  Colleges are full of those types of organizations, and that will allow you to really get to know people so you can share the gospel with them.
 

Will Metzger’s book, Tell the Truth, begins with the following paragraph:

Have you ever been stymied by evangelism? Do you feel you are tossed between two unacceptable alternatives and can’t find your niche? On the one side you see Christians who are very friendly to others, but don’t say much about Jesus Christ. On the other side are those who are always “giving out the gospel” but seem to know nothing about genuine friendship. The frustration of bumping into these two extremes in Christian circles is very real.

Metzger wrote these words twenty-five years ago, but I think our blog discussion shows that the tension he described is alive and well. Let me say again that I think contact evangelism can be more helpful on places like a college campus or a spring break beach where it just makes more sense to strike up a conversation about the gospel (at least it does to me) than at the mall or knocking on someone’s door.

Let me also say that contact evangelism, given the “success rate” may be more useful for the evangelist than the listener. In other words, being forced to overcome one’s fears and share the gospel with a stranger can be a challenging, thrilling, and empowering experience.

Having said that, contact evangelism, by its very definition, tempts us to think of evangelism programmatically, categorically, as if evangelism is something that we turn off and on like a light switch as opposed to thinking of evangelism more as a lifestyle. If you think of evangelism primarily in terms of contact methodology than I think you will (and should) feel guilty for not hitting the streets with tracts on Saturday morning because you will not be faithful to sharing the Gospel as you understand faithfulness.

However, if you understand that sharing the Gospel is about seeking out and taking advantage of relationships the Lord has given you in the ways I’ve already described (being more than friendly–being intentional!), then I don’t think you need to feel guilty that you’ve not made contact evangelism a regular staple of your diet.

I want to end this post with a lengthy excerpt from Lifestyle Evangelism by Joe Aldrich. In a tender, respectful way he addressed the issues we are raising:

Three things need to be said about [confrontational evangelism]. First it is legitimate. Many have found Christ through this approach. Second, it is limited. I doubt that 10 percent of the body of Christ will ever be effective in this type of evangelism. Third, it allows a much higher percentage of the body to meet unbelievers and give a positive witness with a little encouragement and training . . . However, it is naive to assume that most people trust in Christ as the result of a stranger witnessing to them during a one-time spiritual transaction. The vast majority do not. Furthermore, many are hindered from making a decision because of a bad decison with a zealous but insensitive witness.

I’m sure you’re right that there are places and times where cold-contact evangelism is more appropriate than at other times. But let me try to put the question as pointedly as I can: Should Christians feel guilty if they’re not out regularly doing cold-contact evangelism?

I’ve been taught all my life that it’s a good thing—and perhaps even to be expected of Christians—that they be doing contact evangelism. In other words, I’ve grown up being told that if I am to be a sold-out Christian, I need to be going out on Saturday mornings, knocking on doors, handing people a gift basket or a light bulb, and asking them if I can share with them about the “gift of God” or the “light of the world,” respectively. Or I need to be hanging out at a local shopping mall, intercepting people to do a “spiritual survey” with them, and looking for a way to transition to the Gospel.

Well, the fact is I don’t particularly like doing that sort of thing. As I said earlier, I find it uncomfortable and even a little distasteful. But I wonder, am I wrong to feel that way? I mean, on the one hand, people have definitely been brought to faith by cold-contact evangelism. And I have many friends who do that kind of evangelism pretty often.

But on the other hand, I also know that cold-contact evangelism, even when it is “successful,” tends to result in more decisions than real conversions. There’s also just the bare fact that if someone pigeon-holed me in a mall, or showed up on my doorstep with a light bulb, I would find that somewhat less than endearing.

So to put a fine point on it—When I have a free Saturday morning, should I feel guilty if I’m not out on the street knocking on doors handing out light bulbs, or standing in a mall giving spiritual surveys, or even handing out tracts at the door of SAC? To push it a little further, is there ever really a time when cold-contact is a better strategy for spreading the Gospel than relational evangelism?