"Overall, we know that when people visit the websites they will be challenged by the Truth, as many have been already."

I hope that this is true, Roger.

Well I certaintly wouldn't want to dissapoint you, Bill. You can get a good idea of the impact this sort of evangelism has by reading the emails Rob puts in his newsletters. There's plenty of angry emails, but there are also who are positively affected by his ministry.

You are unpacking part of my sentiment, Roger. I hope that it is true that this method is bearing fruit, because as you demonstrate by the angry emails, it is also costly in the offense if offers. I am sincere in my hope that this works, for I do not want the negative perception of Christianity it fosters to outweigh its benefit.

I'll hop over and check out the newsletter. I appreciate, Roger, your genuine desire that those of the Mormon faith would come to know Jesus Christ as we understand him through scripture.

My guess is that the angry emails stem from those who already have a "negative perception of Christianity". Such that any attempt to express the truth of Christianity in opposition to any other religion would add offense in their minds. This method seems to be a very gracious use of confrontational evangelism.

I read the last two newsletters. I saw many letters from Christians encouraging him. I only saw one email from an LDS who was actually interacting with his material. Do you recall any examples of his website bearing fruit in persuading LDS toward our faith? Any testimonials perhaps of an LDS sharing appreciation for his site correcting their errors? I was hoping for such evidence, and lacking that I am now more concerned that his site may not be having any such persuasive affect.

Bill, I think some people respond to street evangelism and some don't, but that's the beauty of God's kingdom. God gives Christians different gifts so that together we can reach all. I'm not well-suited for street evangelism--it's not my gift. But I definitely think God has specially gifted some people for it for a purpose. Jesus, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, and many others in the Bible all said things that caused great anger in people, but that didn't mean their efforts were not a way God intended to use to get people's attention.

I met Rob a few years ago in front of the Salt Lake City temple where he was having a reasonable discussion with a couple of people. He's highly educated (much more than I!), he's not an angry person, nor cruel to people, nor unnecessarily rude. Yesterday, Jenny (my roommate, for those of you who don't know) and I stopped by Newport Beach to tour the temple on our way back from a wedding. We rode the shuttle from the parking lot to the temple grounds, right past Rob, Roger, Brian and some others. The people on the bus all began to talk about the website "josephlied.com." They didn't sound angry, merely amused. They're going to remember that site, and probably many of them will stop by out of curiosity--especially those who already have secret doubts. Because it's a very serious thing in Mormonism to express doubts, the internet is a very effective way for Mormons to freely look into these things. Rob said the stats on his website have gone way up in the last few days.

Because of the nature of Rob's ministry, he's unlikely to see masses of people convert on the spot. But he's very likely to start people thinking and questioning and looking for answers. Rob was telling me yesterday how stories get back to him of people who became Christians years after first receiving information from him. Rob is the first jolt, the first step to get people going down the path. Considering what's at stake, I think that jolt is worth it.

What were some of the "other things" people did passing by? Nevermind, don't answer that.

Roger, I am going to link to this blog as one example of how to practically practice apologetics.

These are the stories I was interested in, Amy. I am glad to hear one, that the negative responses are minimal and two, that we see evidence that these are having that initial effect you are looking for.

I can appreciate the role you describe of giving people a place to explore the doubts they may have been curious about before, particularly a more anonymous place.

I believe there are some people who practice clearly negative methods of evangelism and never have any sign of positive effect. Rather than weigh the apparent lack of fruit with the bad responses to their method, they find righteousness in continuing to stand firm in what they believe is faithful. I find this impracticle, foolish, and even dangerous. If we employ a method which has the potential to drive people further from Christ, I believe it behooves us to try to evaluate whether it is one God is actually working through to reach people, rather than blindly go on with an action that may be pushing people away from Christ.

Of course I don't see conversions every month, but if you go back through the past newsletters within the last year (particularly in the "MAILBAG" section, you'll see many who have left Mormonism and have come to Christ because they were confronted with a sign or a tract. Please also check out a talk I gave, "Suffering and Joy in Evangelizing Mormons", that you can
Download on my site (see Hot Topics or go to Downloads page). You may also be interested in the following news article that just came out: http://www.sanpetemessenger.com/news810_2.html

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2).

R.M.S.
www.MormonInfo.org

R.M.S., the article quotes your arguments for the effectiveness of what you're doing, but it also even handedly describes the concerns with your method.

I prefer the tone of the NIV translation, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction."

The NAS as well leans toward more sensitivity, "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction."

I pray that God works through you to lead people to Jesus Christ. I am concerned though about the negative impact of your actions. I pray also that they push as few people away from Christ as possible.

Bill, woul you say that Jesus' teaching had a negative impact? There's at least one point where people left because of his "hard teaching." (John 6:60-69) Isn't the Gospel inherently offensive?

There is an inherent offense to the gospel. It is foolishness to those whom the Spirit is not acting to bring to faith. That doesn't give me license to add offense to it with my delivery, nor would I think that a good idea.

If our intent is to go and make disciples as Jesus commanded, perhaps we should follow the examples of Jesus that bore the fruit of making disciples, rather than those that accomplished another end and did not.

Jesus was at times very harsh, though not often to those outside the faith. Jesus did many things and had several purposes to his ministry. If we are taking on all of those purposes, then it would be good to do all of the things that Jesus did. If it is our intent specifically to follow Christ command to make disciples though, not all of his actions were intended to do that.

For instance, you will note that in the passage you are referring to, Jesus was earlier trying to flee the crowds. Commentators believe he was sending away the crowds because their spectator interest was not in line with what he was seeking to accomplish in that moment. When it is our intent to drive away the spectators who are looking for the spectacle of our miraculous power and the celebrity of a popular evangelist, maybe we too should use the methods he used to separate them from those who he actually wanted to work with.

If it is our purpose that people be drawn into a relationship with Jesus Christ, and grow into maturity as disciples, perhaps we would be better suited to follow the examples of Jesus where he clearly had that same end.

I think this is extremely well-stated, Bill.

I agree that we shouldn't add offense to the Gospel, which is something I've said before.

One point of our disagreement may come in relation to this particular passage. It doesn't follow that simply because Jesus intended to drive away spectators; there was no intention for discipleship. It seems to me that those who remained learned an important lesson vital to their role as disciples of Christ.

It's not clear to me that "street witnessing" or "confrontational evangelism," such as what Rob does, adds offense to the Gospel necessarily. I'll admit I've seen individuals who add offense to it, but I don't see how the added offense is inherent to the method. What does seem inherent to the method is that those who do spend time actually engaging Rob and what he has to say are more likely to be the disciples he's looking for than the spectators who are turned away by it.

"It's not clear to me that "street witnessing...adds offense to the Gospel necessarily"
I don't assume this either.