ARTICLE: JW's at My Door by Gregory Koukl

[STR Ambassador]

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away. Will you?
When I mentioned the deity of Christ, the person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I wasn't prepared for what she said.

JW's at My Door

It was Tuesday mid-morning and I'd been studying when I heard the knock on my door. When I opened it, two middle-aged women smiled at me pleasantly, bundles of apocalyptic literature in hand. Would I like to see their material?

I mentioned there were two, but only the one in front--the one who'd knocked--had been speaking. The second stood quietly in the back, watching. Jehovah's Witnesses go out in pairs, an experienced Witness and a new disciple. The neophyte makes the initial contact, while the mentor waits protectively in the background, ready for a flanking maneuver should her young cadet get into trouble.

I knew I had very little time to make an impact. For one, I was preparing for a lecture and was running against the clock. Still, I didn't want to send my visitors away empty-handed. Second, door-to-door types usually have little time for anyone who is biblically literate. Once I showed my hand I knew they'd disappear quickly, looking for an easier mark.

I quickly gathered my thoughts and assembled a response.

"I'm a Christian pastor," I said, directing my comments to the younger convert, the one less influenced by the Watchtower organization and more open to another viewpoint. "In fact, I'm studying theology right now." I held up the tome I'd been reading, Turretin's 18th century Institutes of Eclentic Theology.

"It's clear we have some differences, including the vital issue of the identity of Jesus. I believe what John teaches in John 1:3, that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. This makes Him God."

Mention of the deity of Christ was all that was needed to bring the rear guard into action. The person in the shadows spoke up for the first time. I honestly wasn't prepared for her response.

"You're entitled to your opinion and we're entitled to ours," was all she said. No question, no challenge, no theological rejoinder. This was a dismissal, not a response. She turned on her heels and started for the next house--young cadet in tow--in search of more vulnerable game.

I cast about for something to say that might slow their retreat. "You're also entitled to be wrong in your opinion," I said gently, but directly. I admit it wasn't a devastating rejoinder, but it was all I could think of. "Clearly we both can't be right, even though we're both entitled to our opinions." I was hoping for some kind of reaction, some kind of engagement, but my challenge had no effect.

As they faded from the doorway I fired my final salvo, vainly hoping for a response. "Obviously, you're not interested in hearing any other point of view than your own." Then they were gone.

In the moments that followed a host of questions flooded my mind. Did I use the right tactic? Would a different approach have been more effective? Did anything I say leave a good impression? Did I plant even a seed of doubt in the initiate's mind?

I'll probably never know the answer to those questions, but the encounter was still educational. Notice a couple of things about this short exchange.

First, what did these two missionaries do when they encountered someone who was biblically literate? What was their first response when I mentioned my background, then gave a thumbnail sketch of an argument striking right at the heart of their most cherished doctrine?

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away.

What's wrong with this picture? If you were convinced that the medicine you held in your hand would save the life of a dying patient, would you turn on your heels, letting them perish just because they didn't like the taste of the treatment?

Isn't that a strange response for a door-to-door evangelist, out to save the world, but taking flight at the first sign of disagreement?

First, they weren't very confident of their message. Why should I take a single moment to consider an alleged message from God that the messenger himself wouldn't lift one finger to defend? Why should I respect the cause of a soldier who retreats at the first sign of resistance?

Second, they weren't that interested in my salvation. If someone's genuinely interested in rescuing lost souls, their first impulse would be to find out what I believed and then correct my errant theology. Isn't that why they go door to door, to witness to the lost, to give them the truth about Jehovah God and invite them to join the Watchtower organization?

But they didn't even listen to my point of view, much less try to correct my error. Do you know what that tells me? They didn't care much about my eternal destiny.

Third, they don't take the issue of truth very seriously. Religious evangelism is a persuasive enterprise; the evangelist is trying to change people's minds. He thinks his view is true and other views are false. He also thinks the difference matters. Follow the truth, you win; follow a lie, you lose--big time. A commitment to truth (as opposed to a commitment to an organization) means an openness to refining one's own views, increasing the accuracy in understanding, constantly searching for more precision in thinking.

A challenger could always turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who's convinced of his view would want to hear the very best arguments against it. One of two things is going to happen.

He may discover that some objections to his view are good ones. The rebuttal helps him make adjustments and corrections in his thinking, refining his knowledge of the truth. Or it may turn out he's on solid ground after all. Developing answers to the toughest arguments against him strengthens both his witness and his own confidence in his religion.

But my visitors didn't wait to hear my thoughts to inform their own beliefs, so they might know the truth more accurately. They didn't pause to hear the reasons I reject the Watchtower's authority, so they might try to refute me and gain confidence in their own view.

One final thought occurred to me. Sometimes an evangelist is a Jeremiah, a lone voice faithfully proclaiming a message in the face of firmly entrenched unbelief. It will never be heeded, but it's still declared faithfully, an example of God gracious offer even to the recalcitrant, those who will never budge.

But the two Witnesses didn't offer me a terse word of warning, even though they felt that my mind was made up. There was no faithful proclamation of their truth, just a rapid retreat.

Which brings me to a final question. If these door-to-door evangelists weren't interested in getting me saved, or correcting my wrong notions about God, or refining their knowledge of the truth, or even being faithful to speak the truth in the face of opposition, then why were they knocking on my door? If they really believed that religious belief amounted to no more than individual opinion, what's the point of changing people's minds?

There must have been some reason these ladies were out every week, risking discomfort, derision and ridicule. What was it? It wasn't out of faithfulness to God and His message, or they wouldn't have dismissed me so readily. It was out of faithfulness to an organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

These missionaries had done their time. They'd knocked on my door and offered me literature. Putting in the hours is what keeps them in "grace." Saving souls is not really the object. Neither is knowing the truth, nor deepening their faith, nor being faithful to proclaim the message.

That's the danger of promoting an organization rather than being faithful to God's truth. Everything goes topsy-turvy. The means becomes the end and the life goes out of the whole enterprise.

This holds some lessons for every Christian who takes his or her faith seriously: Don't be too quick to back down from opposition.

First, as intelligent or aggressive as your opponent might seem, he still is, in fact, perishing without Christ. You don't know what internal struggles he's facing that don't show through his confident or gruff exterior. You don't know but that God will use your simple, gracious, but direct challenge to his beliefs and begin to melt his rebellious heart.

Second, you might learn something. Maybe you're the one that's mistaken, at least in part. If your bad arguments are refuted, ditch them. The case for Christianity is too good to be compromised by bad defenses.

But maybe you're not mistaken. If so, you want to be certain your faith can stand up to the most rigorous analysis. If someone has an objection, you don't have to answer it right then. Make sure you understand the objection clearly, then do some work on it. This will strengthen your own confidence.

Finally, sometimes it's right to simply yet graciously tell the truth about God and man, even when man is not interested. There may be a day when your clear, confident words will come back to him. If it's not on this side of the grave, it will be in front of the throne, as evidence of God making the options clear even in the face of disinterest.

Don't retreat in the face of the simplest opposition. Too much is at stake. Be the kind of soldier that instills respect even in the enemy because of your courage under fire.


Stand to Reason - training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org


Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

JWs and Mormons et al. are trained to prey on the spiritually weak, not confront those that know what they're talking about.

When you'se peoples gunna post again on any of da udder links you've started... :poke: ?
dlw

[STR Ambassador]

dlw,

I appreciate your interest in the issues, but I haven't responded a second time to your comments because you repeat yourself. Your responses haven't engaged the points I brought up; you repeat yourself. There's no point in writing a new response because I'd say the exact same thing I've already said. When you engage my points, I'll have something new to respond to.

STR Ambassador

[Da Lone-Warrior]

STR Ambassador:

dlw,

I appreciate your interest in the issues, but I haven't responded a second time to your comments because you repeat yourself. Your responses haven't engaged the points I brought up; you repeat yourself. There's no point in writing a new response because I'd say the exact same thing I've already said. When you engage my points, I'll have something new to respond to.

STR Ambassador


I believe you responded twice to me, rather briefly. There are similarities in what I say and some themes get repeated, but there also are differences.

I think we just have two rather different understandings of apologetics. I cut my teeth on apologetics through studying the techniques used by Greg Boyd in Letters from a Skeptic. I then also got exposed to some Jewish Agnostic thought in graduate school, which has made me more aware of the importance of tradition and the fallible judgements we make about how we should let our lights shine for the world.

Boyd's approach put a premium on interacting with the non-believer and removing intellectual barriers to their faith. This can include treating theological concepts that were historically taken for granted here in the US as non-essential. My exposure to Jewish Agnostic thought, makes me less confident that Classical Christianity is what we should try to share with all the rest of the world. We are to make disciples of all nations, not classical orthodox Christians of all nations.

So if you don't want to deal with "bad" theological reasoning, I guess its just as well. Topically, the posts do vary.

dlw

[bar Jonah]

Similar experience happened here in Denver to my fellow GODISNOWHERE teammate, Adam. The JWs actually had the chutzpah to knock on the door of his not-yet-open Christian Used Books Store. :lol: What did they expect???

:rired:

[STR Ambassador]

dlw,

What techniques from Boyd are you referring to? I've read his books, spoken with him, and attended lectures he's given and he is very concerned with advancing arguments and giving reasons for what he believes. So far from what I can see you've pretty much engaged in skepticism that seems to bypass the issues and arguments raised in the articles. It seems like there's an underlying issue on your mind that you're not really stating directly so it's hard to respond. Boyd engages the arguments, critiques them, and offers his own.

I'm not sure what you're reading into the phrase "classical Christianity." There is a common creed or core of beliefs that minimally one must believe to be a Christian. In "Letters to a Skeptic" Boyd is working through basic Christian beliefs and common objections about theism and Christianity in an attempt to be rational and Biblical. (The openness debate is an example of trying to decide what is classical and essential. But even then, most of the adherents of openness still agree on a vast body of beleifs they don't consider controversial.) If you're going to make disciples, you must have a body of beliefs that you will disciple them in and teach them.

Even Boyd is concerned about the classical Christianity. In his arguments for the openness doctrine of God he (and other adherents of the doctrine) attempts to place this in the historical view about God's omniscience. Some degree of agnosticism (when the evidence doesn't warrant a conclusion) and skepticism (because of our fallibility) is healthy; but at some point the burden is on the agnostic or skeptic to demonstrate why the reasons given aren't persuasive.

Even though we disagree with Boyd on openness, we've found much in common with him in style and technique.

STR Ambassador

[Da Lone-Warrior]

STR Ambassador:

dlw,

What techniques from Boyd are you referring to? I've read his books, spoken with him, and attended lectures he's given and he is very concerned with advancing arguments and giving reasons for what he believes. So far from what I can see you've pretty much engaged in skepticism that seems to bypass the issues and arguments raised in the articles. It seems like there's an underlying issue on your mind that you're not really stating directly so it's hard to respond. Boyd engages the arguments, critiques them, and offers his own.

Boyd, in his letters from a skeptic book, let his father dictate the issues. In my posts, I do not directly address the issues you raise, cause I don't perceive them as the root issues that non-Christians raise about Christianity. And so I guess I have not engaged your arguments always. I must apologize for this. Questions of Truth clearly do get raised by Christians and non-Christians, but I think at a more fundamental level is the question of why should one give Christian Ecclesiastical Institutions governance over their life? The existence of Truth may be all well and good, but why do Christians have a comparative advantage in discerning that Truth. Too much of our history, both Protestant and Catholic, has proven the fallible nature of so much of our governance.

I'm not sure what you're reading into the phrase "classical Christianity." There is a common creed or core of beliefs that minimally one must believe to be a Christian. In "Letters to a Skeptic" Boyd is working through basic Christian beliefs and common objections about theism and Christianity in an attempt to be rational and Biblical. (The openness debate is an example of trying to decide what is classical and essential. But even then, most of the adherents of openness still agree on a vast body of beleifs they don't consider controversial.) If you're going to make disciples, you must have a body of beliefs that you will disciple them in and teach them.

True, but, often in dealing with the issues we face today, those essentials are inadequate for informing how we Christians should let our light shine. For example, take Abortion. We do not know from the Bible when human life begins, but can agree because of the importance of human life that we should avoid abortions. Yet, then we still have to decide how we interact with the gov't to make its laws better. This requires making judgment about what aspects of sinful behavior should be taken as given and unlikely to change and what aspects can be changed through a change in laws. And even then, we face a tradeoff between how we spend our time/energy trying to change laws and changing hearts, but how we interact with the gov't, in general, may affect our ability to witness. In the other forum, Tim Penny, former congressman, described his professional judgement that much of the nat'l pro-life activism had produced mostly acrimony, and very little prevention of abortions.

So the point is that fallible judgments over inessentials are essential for how we live and let our lights shine in this world.

Even Boyd is concerned about the classical Christianity. In his arguments for the openness doctrine of God he (and other adherents of the doctrine) attempts to place this in the historical view about God's omniscience. Some degree of agnosticism (when the evidence doesn't warrant a conclusion) and skepticism (because of our fallibility) is healthy; but at some point the burden is on the agnostic or skeptic to demonstrate why the reasons given aren't persuasive.

Sure, or it may be just a question of them deciding what they want to believe at root. Apologetics, as I learned from Greg Boyd, is about removing barriers to faith in Christianity for non-Christians. This doesn't necessarily mean winning arguments.

Even though we disagree with Boyd on openness, we've found much in common with him in style and technique.

STR Ambassador

Please forgive me for my rudeness then, I hope that my answers help explain my viewpoint.

I think fallible judgements make a big difference in our witness, but that we don't acknowledge that as much as we should. I am reminded of how during the firestorm over Clinton's affair with Monica, at the same time it was coming out that tobacco executives had lied to the US gov't over the addictiveness and deadliness of their products. Not one word was raised in condemnation of this behavior. This lead my Jewish Agnostic friend to view Religious Conservatives as hypocrites. We go after Bill Clinton, but when Republican leaders are shown to have sinned much worse, we fail to act on that. We also fail to act and display autonomy on many of the economic policies of the Republican party that often serve to circumvent the antitrust policies of our country or that value cheap goods from China more than the freedom from religious persecution in said country.

dlw

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202098#post202098)
dlw2003:

I am reminded of how during the firestorm over Clinton's affair with Monica, at the same time it was coming out that tobacco executives had lied to the US gov't over the addictiveness and deadliness of their products. Not one word was raised in condemnation of this behavior. This lead my Jewish Agnostic friend to view Religious Conservatives as hypocrites. We go after Bill Clinton, but when Republican leaders are shown to have sinned much worse, we fail to act on that.

I'm sorry dlw, but this is patently untrue. If your friend viewed "Religious Conservatives" as hypocrites ... he needs to be looking in the right direction. Perhaps he was mislead by the secular news coverage where sexual sin "sells" ... However, there were ... and are ... many Christians who are outraged at the actions of the tobacco industry and have spoken out against it. Personally, I have no lobby for either ... but I taught my son the facts ... both from the slightly fictional movie "The Insider" (correcting the slight errors given there ... although there weren't many given that Dr. Wigand was on staff) ... and Dr. Jeffrey Wigand's instructional movie (Secrets Through the Smoke ... very, very informative ... I highly recommend it) that I ordered, as well as two others that covered similar material. In fact, I taught this far more stringently than the coverage I gave the Clinton/Monica fiasco ... only explaining to my son briefly what happened, and why the impeachment process ensued.

So, my point here is, your friend has relied on secular news coverage to speak for the Christian community ... and that is as ignorant as looking to a Church denomination's television commercial to tell you what the Gospels say.

But do let's bring this back to the topic at hand. I really like what was said here, "Don't retreat in the face of the simplest opposition. Too much is at stake. Be the kind of soldier that instills respect even in the enemy because of your courage under fire." How often we, as Christian witnesses, become discouraged in the face of continuous opposition ... but we do need to be strong, and continue to practice what is outlined for us in 2 Cor 10.

Thanks for a great article!

[STR Ambassador]

dlw,

You mention that you use Boyd's "technique" in his book "Letters to a Skeptic," but the funny thing is you've got it exactly backwards. You're playing the part of the father trying to set the agenda here, and trying to force me into using Boyd's "technique".

His "technique" was dictated by the purpose for that particular book; it's not one he followed in the rest of his books. Here's a situation analogous to ours here in this particular forum on TheologyWeb.com. I've been to lectures that Boyd has given at conferences. He chooses what topic he's speaks on; people decide whether to attend and participate based on that topic. He gives his paper on that topic; the audience then asks questions or engages him in discussion on that topic. If someone doesn't want to participate in that topic they go to another lecture or find someone to talk to on what they want to discuss.

Our purpose in this forum is to engage in discussion on the topic of the article posted. If that topic doesn't interest you, then there are other forums where you can find others interested in your topic or you can start your own thread. So I'm using Greg Boyd's "technique" he uses in his other books and his lectures. I'll set the topic with the article, and anyone interested in the topic is welcome to post. But I'll not respond to postings off topic or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It doesn't mean there isn't something worthwhile in other topics; we are just limiting our discussion here to a particular topic.

STR Ambassador

[Reasonable]

I've encountered JW's several times and the experieinces I have had have been drastically different from Gregory's. I've heard of several people saying JW's go in pairs of a new one and an experienced one. While I'm sure that's the case occassionally, most of the ones I have encountered were both JW's for a long time. I'm sure Gregory took some license in making his story more exciting (standing in the shadows, flanking maneuvers, etc.) but accounts like these do not really help the truth. I've seen fellow Trinitarians shrink away from discussions on the Trinity.

I also work with a guy who is a JW and I asked him about this. He says they haven't had a new convert in their area for a long time and everyone in their church, hall, whatever they call it, has been a JW for a long time.

Also, the JW's that I talked to were quick to discuss the Trinity with me and came back several times. I really do believe they were interested in me as I was in them. Finally we both agreed that we were getting nowhere. Everyonce in a while some more will come by. In EVERY religion there are sincere people and there are those who are just trying to get by. Hypocrites exist in all walks of life and religions. Gregory may have ran into a few but I think it's a real disservice to Christians to categorize all people because of that experience. I've had some strange experiences with Baptists and Methodist but I won't go around telling people all Baptists are hypocrits or all Methodists are just doing it for show.

Rather than telling exagerated stories, simply keep to spreading the truth. Stories like the above certainly won't do much for converting JW's as they will recogize it is full of opinionated thoughts. I never have questioned JW's love for God. Just their understanding of the Bible. BY and large they demonstrate a far more zealous, evangelizing spirit than most here at T-Web, even if it's mis-directed.

[bar Jonah]

Yesterday @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209433#post209433)
Reasonable:
I've had some strange experiences with Baptists and Methodist but I won't go around telling people all Baptists are hypocrits or all Methodists are just doing it for show.
Apples and oranges and bananas.

Many Baptists and some Methodists are Christians.

JWs are not.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 07:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209856#post209856)
RightIdea:


Apples and oranges and bananas.

Many Baptists and some Methodists are Christians.

JWs are not.

"MANY baptist and SOME Methodist are Christians" Hmm, I wonder what religion you are. HA HA

Not my point, though. The point is that he labeled practically all JW's as hypocrites because of the two he met at the door. I know some Baptists that I can almost definitely say are NOT Christians (based on their fruits and way of life) but I won't label you as a pagan because of them.

[Griffin]

I don't think that STR was characterizing all JWs as hypocrits, but when a person's evangelistic motivation is not love it shouldn't be surprising that the presentation is weak. "The hireling flees because he is a hireling."
We should keep this in mind. I spent many Sunday afternoons in my youth witnessing door-to-door. I can't claim any great success at it, but God uses our poor attempts to serve Him. We need to serve Him correctly. "Many will say to me, 'Lord, we cast out demons in Your name.' And I will say to them, 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'"
When I have met the JWs (or Mormons, or Oneness Pentecostals) at my door I try to not come on too strongly. If I pose thoughtful and provocative questions they will often come back. Another strategic consequence is that time they spend with me is not being spent with someone more vulnerable.
I do appreciate STR's point about our faith in the truth of the Gospel.

[Karl_Franz]

I remember a story my father once told me about door to door conversion teams.

This case involves my grandad, a religious holiday (Easter weekend) and Mormons...

My grandfather answered the door, and they put up the usual attempt at chit chat while preparing to make the sales pitch. My grandfather (a Catholic, and his father was a chaplain on the Eastern front in the Great War) explained in no uncertain terms that he was trying to celebrate with his family and that coming doorknocking on the most important Catholic religious holiday was the height of bad taste.

The Mormons instantly accused him of being close minded.

To this my grandfather calmly invited the Mormons inside and showed them his bookshelfwhere he kept the family bible, beside it was the translated copy of the Q'uran he recieved while serving in Egypt, a copy in Arabic, Platos' Republic and the works of Neitsche. On the shelf below was a copy of the book of Mormon.

They apologised to the whole family and left, I imagine they were quite ashamed of themselves.

The point is...

Whether Jovies, Mormons or Raelians, they will generally assume that you are ignorant, or stupid. Most are just looking to do their job and go home. If you show them that you wont be easily swayed, often they will leave, gracefully or not. This group did so gracefully.

[themuzicman]

All the more reason to pursue spiritual maturity with everyone in the church, so that they are able to stand up under the attack of these cults.

We have a Mormon church near our house, and they stop by every now and then. I usually give them a lesson in trinitarian doctrine, and send them on their way.

Michael

[barryrob]

Apples and oranges and bananas.

Many Baptists and some Methodists are Christians.

JWs are not.
It is very easy to just say "Jw's are not" but I have been one for 30 yrs. and my personal experance tells me that we do our very best to follow Christ our Lord and obey what he said.

If you make comments as such I think you need to support them with somthing of import.

BarryRob

[Violin_for_God]

Hi, I'm new to this board, but recently I had some interaction with JW's and Mormons at my door (they came to my door around the same time, had appointments with me for about 2 months, 1x/wk, and cut off communication with me in the same week... strange?) Here are a couple things I learned and perhaps other people can post what they learned from their interactions with JW's.

1. Be open to what they have to say (doesn't mean they're right, but if you listen to them, you can be more equiped in asking them questions-Columbo tactic)

2. I suggest knowing some basics about foreign languages and translation. Reason: JW's believe that the NWT (their Bible) is a better translation than any of the standard ones we use (NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.) If you know a bit about "translation theory" (actual field of study), you'll be better equipped in explaining why it's good to have several different translations of the same work.

3. Read through some of their literature so you can ask questions about it. If you know the basic doctrine of Christianity and the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels and beginning of Acts, you'll be able to pick out many "added" details that do not appear in scripture (such as James being given more than just the "keys to paradise" but given specifically 3 keys representing opportunities to enter Heaven (one of the dates having been 1914, to support JW theology)--from JW booklet "The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived", story #59, second page). Another interesting publication by JW's is "Should You Believe in the Trinity". This is a good example of how they take Bible verses and other scholarly material horribly out of context in attempt to pursuade you of their theology. In other words, how NOT to quote or cite material. To know where they get their quotes from, see the website
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-jw-anti-trinity-booklet-master-index-quotes.htm
Also, the booklet they go through in their meetings/appointments with potential converts is called "Knowledge that leads to everlasting life". You'll see problems immediately.

4. Some words to avoid using unless you want their defenses to go up: Trinity, Jesus is God, etc. When I mentioned these things, their faces looked like this: http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/brood.gif then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/argue.gif thenhttp://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/offtopic.gif thenhttp://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

... and I was like this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/huh.gif then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/argh.gif

They don't listen after that. Tell them that they are not listening to you or rebuke their behavior if they start cutting you off at every sentence.

5. When they leave, understand IT WAS NOT YOU... IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT... your job is simply to make them think about what they believe.


6. Try to explain to them in conversation who God is in our (the Christian) view, they allow you... that He's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, all-time (eternal). They do not believe that He is all-present; only His "active force" is. (This helps with encountering Mormons as well... they believe that matter existed before God.)

Good luck!

[barryrob]

Hi, I'm new to this board, but recently I had some interaction with JW's and Mormons at my door (they came to my door around the same time, had appointments with me for about 2 months, 1x/wk, and cut off communication with me in the same week... strange?) Here are a couple things I learned and perhaps other people can post what they learned from their interactions with JW's.

1. Be open to what they have to say (doesn't mean they're right, but if you listen to them, you can be more equiped in asking them questions-Columbo tactic)

2. I suggest knowing some basics about foreign languages and translation. Reason: JW's believe that the NWT (their Bible) is a better translation than any of the standard ones we use (NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.) If you know a bit about "translation theory" (actual field of study), you'll be better equipped in explaining why it's good to have several different translations of the same work.

3. Read through some of their literature so you can ask questions about it. If you know the basic doctrine of Christianity and the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels and beginning of Acts, you'll be able to pick out many "added" details that do not appear in scripture (such as James being given more than just the "keys to paradise" but given specifically 3 keys representing opportunities to enter Heaven (one of the dates having been 1914, to support JW theology)--from JW booklet "The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived", story #59, second page). Another interesting publication by JW's is "Should You Believe in the Trinity". This is a good example of how they take Bible verses and other scholarly material horribly out of context in attempt to pursuade you of their theology. In other words, how NOT to quote or cite material. To know where they get their quotes from, see the website
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-jw-anti-trinity-booklet-master-index-quotes.htm
Also, the booklet they go through in their meetings/appointments with potential converts is called "Knowledge that leads to everlasting life". You'll see problems immediately.

4. Some words to avoid using unless you want their defenses to go up: Trinity, Jesus is God, etc. When I mentioned these things, their faces looked like this: http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/brood.gif then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/argue.gif thenhttp://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/offtopic.gif thenhttp://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

... and I was like this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/huh.gif then this http://theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/argh.gif

They don't listen after that. Tell them that they are not listening to you or rebuke their behavior if they start cutting you off at every sentence.

5. When they leave, understand IT WAS NOT YOU... IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT... your job is simply to make them think about what they believe.


6. Try to explain to them in conversation who God is in our (the Christian) view, they allow you... that He's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, all-time (eternal). They do not believe that He is all-present; only His "active force" is. (This helps with encountering Mormons as well... they believe that matter existed before God.)

Good luck!
Just a little correction. Jesus is God - Ture, until compaired with The Almighty Jehovah then Jesus becomes "a god" as he is a less in might and authority to The Father and to the Father only.

Barryrob

[Didaktylos]

They backed off. They bailed out. They ran away. Will you?

(editorial explanation by Didaktylos - main body of text deleted because it would be superfluous to quote the whole thing)

Don't retreat in the face of the simplest opposition. Too much is at stake. Be the kind of soldier that instills respect even in the enemy because of your courage under fire.


But to extend the military metaphor - it is not the job of scouts/skirmishers/raiders to get themselves killed or captured through getting embroiled in major firefights; rather their task is to gather intelligence and harass the enemy. Granted, if you as the oppostion occupy a position that you can defend, it is in your side's long term advantage to persuade the opposition to waste his time attacking it.

After all, the JW's surely don't expect to make a conversion on the basis of a single visit from the doorsteppers - there would undoubtedly be follow-up meetings. The doorsteppers' task is surely to see who- (a): might be amenable to follow-up work, (b): is not worth wasting energy upon or (c): is a positive danger.

[barryrob]

JWs and Mormons et al. are trained to prey on the spiritually weak, not confront those that know what they're talking about.
You are so wrong, which show that you do not realy know much about us.
Barryrob

[scottkh]

The original post is a classic example of someone without enough experience in communicating with cult members. It seems rather elementary to point out that if you want to have a conversation with a Witness at your door, don't begin by boldly announcing that you're a Pastor. This is utterly foolish, given that a Witness is trained to be sceptical about denominational Christianity. A far better approach would be to open by asking a question that forces the Witness to think.

Secondly, why is the author surprised that Witnesses have no interest in his eternal destiny? They're not saved. In light of 1 Cor. 1:18, it should be surprising to find any Witnesses that are truly interested in the spiritual welfare of others.

What bothers me the most about this article by Gregory Koukl, is that as the President of "Stand to Reason" he is presenting himself as someone informed and experienced, and therefore someone to be instructed by. Unfortunately this article, and others I've read, don't appear to support that conclusion.

More informed help can be found from an ex-JW like Jay Hess at www.biblicalanswers.net.

-Scott

[Violin_for_God]

Oops, after reading this many months later, I made a few boo boos in my post. I know what I meant when I was writing the post, but I should have clarified a few things.
2. I suggest knowing some basics about foreign languages and translation. Reason: JW's believe that the NWT (their Bible) is a better translation than any of the standard ones we use (NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.) If you know a bit about "translation theory" (actual field of study), you'll be better equipped in explaining why it's good to have several different translations of the same work.

There are some real problems with their translation, but they believe their translation is the best translation. However, you can't find a list of who their translators were in order to check their credentials (in the name of humility) and though they state their translation is by the literal approach (as opposed to dynamic equivalence), they give no compelling arguments or support for the passages that are significantly different between the NWT and the NIV or NASB translations.

4. Some words to avoid using unless you want their defenses to go up: Trinity, Jesus is God, etc.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying I don't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God. I actually do believe in them. However, what I meant to say was to make sure you have your ducks lined up (so to say) before mentioning these phrases that, in my experience, seem to cause immediate tension and some hostile arguing. It seemed helpful to lead them to these conclusions rather than stating these beliefs followed by the evidence. In other words, evidence/support --> conclusion may be better than conclusion--> evidence/support.

[Violin_for_God]

Quote: Originally posted by Love-Warrior

JWs and Mormons et al. are trained to prey on the spiritually weak, not confront those that know what they're talking about.

You are so wrong, which show that you do not realy know much about us.
Barryrob

Actually when I talked with JWs and Mormons I had the same experience. After realizing that I had more reasons for what I believed than they did, they stopped the discussions (either simply not showing up anymore or told me that if I didn't change my stance right away, they would not communicate with me anymore... that took me by surprise). They really didn't want to be challenged. They told me they were used to people who knew nothing about what they believed.

[Darth Executor]

Always two they are: a master and an apprentice. Never more, never less.