Hospitality Evangelism Vs. Confrontational Evangelism
I recently ran across Russell D. Moore’s website, Moore to the Point. He has a great subsection entitled: “Papers.” It was here that I found this article: “FREE AND FAITHFUL FUNDAMENTALISTS? HOW TO BE AUTHENTIC BAPTISTS AND RESURGENT CONSERVATIVES (AT THE SAME TIME)” [http://www.russellmoore.com/documents/russellmoore/baptist-conservatism.pdf]
In the article Moore writes:
“To say to homosexuals, “Sing in our choir, play in our orchestra, serve on our deacon body, and pay no mind to those who tell you that you are at enmity with God,” is to say to homosexuals, “To hell with you.” The only way that we can countenance that is if we believe that Jesus did not die for homosexuals, or that there is at least one sin that is more powerful than the new birth. Conservative Southern Baptists have fought long and hard for the priority of verbal evangelism, against those who would prefer non-confrontational programs of “lifestyle witnessing” or “hospitality evangelism.” Now we must continue to offer freely to gays and lesbians the same truth that saved those of us who previously were adulterers or thieves or liars or idol-worshippers or disobedient to parents: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).”
This passage made me wonder: How is it best to evangelize?
It is clear here that “hospitality evangelism” is disregarded for reasons of doctrine and tradition and not for reasons of effectiveness. Does anyone have any experience with this? Is it more effective evangelizing to invite sinners in and have them go through the motions before they make the verbal commitment, or is it better to keep them out until they make the verbal commitment?
As an ironic side note, Moore seems to suggest that all SBC members are formerly theives, liars, and adulterers. We can see clearly in the news that this is not the case.