Analyzing the Conversations of Abolitionists Rising

Abolitionists Rising: a group I am completely in line with, that is fighting to end, and I mean really end — abortion, published their interactions on YouTube from the Iowa State Fair. Their full belief, rooted in science and the Bible, is that life begins at conception — period. And since life begins at conception, laws should be aligned with that belief to protect life from conception.  “Equal protection from conception:” that those inside the womb are protected with the same laws as those outside the womb, and when those laws are violated, justice is served; even if that means punishing the mother who chooses to end the life of her baby with malice, forethought, and intent to do harm to the child. This is the true pro-life stance which most pro-life groups refuse to stand on.

But this article is not about Abolitionists Rising, their beliefs, or why this is consistent with the Christian worldview; rather, to talk about the conversations Russ, the man in the burgundy shirt, and Joseph, wearing the tan colored shirt, had with those passing by, their mannerisms, and what we, as street evangelists, can learn from.

What they said

First, let’s discuss the conversations themselves and what they said. The words, what was said, and the responses.

I never agree to disagree when the truth is at stake – 1:00

Right at a minute in, a young man asks, “Wanna agree to disagree?” This is usually proposed by someone who doesn’t know what to say and wants to remove himself from the conversation to end it on a positive note.

Without blinking, Russ responds, “I never agree to disagree when the truth is at stake.” This is a fantastic response that got the kid thinking. If the young man wanted to continue the conversation, it would also buy the preacher some time to think about his next response.

But more than that, why do we almost always agree to terms like these? Why do we evangelists fall for this when this should be an indicator that we are actually winning the argument? Even though we can not see if the conversation continued, it put the ball in the hands of the young man to continue or not. He has the right and could choose to ask another question or walk away entirely.

The conversation transferred to the gospel or Jesus almost every time: 6:15 – 7:13

Since we are created in the image of God and have value, worth, and dignity, then we need to claim that every child has those things — born or unborn. Because we have these things, God gave us His one and only Son so that we may have life, and have it abundantly.

I understand that the preacher’s priority would be to save as many babies from infanticide as possible, but it should also suggest that this is their secondary priority. Their number one priority is to share the gospel and preach Jesus Christ, because at the end of the day, real Christians do not abort their children. Real radical change in the heart of the sinner though the Holy Spirit affects the head, and also the fruit of their life. It changes the heart, mind, life, and destiny.

Switch topics when the need arises: 11:15 – 12:32

With that said, towards the middle of the video, Russ, with a man that wore a shirt that read: “Gays for Trump.” We don’t see the full conversation from start to finish, but we understand that at some point the preacher decides to focus on the man right in front of him, and his greatest need (his eternal salvation).

The preacher thought (why wouldn’t you) that the man was living a homosexual lifestyle, so he shared the gospel with him in a way that confronted that sin to make it more personal. The gospel is more important, and talking about abortion to a gay man, is not as impactful than talking about his personal sin that does affect him.

Great use of humor

Throughout this video it also shows a great use of humor. There are so many videos out there about witnessing and sharing your faith that show people take everything too serious, which makes things unenjoyable. Yes, sharing the gospel is serious business, but it doesn’t mean you can’t have fun and make it as enjoyable as possible for the people you are talking to, and yourself.

I remember being on a particular evangelistic mission trip where leadership took everything seriously to the nth degree. So much it made those experiencing it for the first time very uncomfortable. It was bad enough getting yelled at by those we were sharing the gospel to, but it was even worse walking on eggshells around those you are working with.

People feed off your energy; and if your energy is tense, it could effect the conversation. But if your energy is calm, peaceful, and lighthearted like these evangelists in the video, even though talking about a serious subject, those on the other end of the conversation will act accordingly.

How they said it

But, what fascinated me more about this video, is not what they said, but how they said it. It wasn’t just the words they used, but their mannerisms, tone, body language, etc., that makes this video unique than anything I’ve seen on the internet witnessing in the open square.

They never raised their voice

Speaking in a calm, collected, and attenuated tone served them well. They were able to talk one-on-one to people and make their cases heard by individuals. In an atmosphere like this with people walking by, they don’t have to speak loudly, and this is demonstrated by passers by listening to the conversations and commenting on what was said.

When it comes to open-air preaching or street preaching, we are always told to raise your voice and get into a place where you can be heard by as many people as possible. To draw a crowd, and work with them to get as many people as possible to listen. But here, it was as if it was just the opposite, and worked in their favor.

A good use of signs

But that’s not ever done here. They used signs, which I am generally opposed to, but use them well to draw people in. This tactic is better suited to find the people who are really bothered by what they see, so that they will engage with the preacher. This does a good job of not expanding your audience, but narrowing it down.

Signs seem obnoxious, in your face, and are loud even though they don’t say a word. It is not wrong to use signs, and the statements made are generally true (with the exception of Westboro church in Kansas that protests funerals of dead soldiers). But these signs were different. Why? Some were questions to ask the passer-by:

• “Are you a human rights hypocrite?”
• “Which of these two human beings was conceived by rape?”
• “Which of these children does not have a right to live?”

Other signs were made up of statements:

• “No child should ever be punished to death for the sins of their father.”
• “Abortion is not healthcare.”
• “Dear Christian, every baby murdered by abortion is your neighbor.”

But when he confronted the crowd a sign, he almost always asked them, ‘What do you think?’ An example of this is when he pointed out the hypocrisy of Peta by asking a question, not making a statement (7:22 – 8:11).

Russ does an amazing job showing how he uses signs and gives a lesson starting in 9:25 and ending in 10:08. He shows the people across the street the sign so that they can determine if they want to engage or not, then puts the sign down at his waist. When signs are held up it can be viewed as a protest or picketing. Yes, we protest the destruction of innocent life, but what we as evangelists do is much more than that. We want people to stop sin, but also turn from it and turn to the Savior.

“So, even in the event that a lot of people don’t talk to you, that there is a mass of people that are at least just being exposed to an ultrasound image, the concept of human rights, and the question of ‘Are you a hypocrite?’ Hopefully puts a bee in the bonnet.”

It’s good to show the sign, but like this gentleman says, it’s really not the sign he wants to display, but to have that deep, intimate conversation with a lost person. Signs should be used to engage the audience to get into a conversation, not be the conversation in and of themselves. The signs are like the headers in this article to prompt us to want to know more. The conversations, which they talk about having a lot of, is what they’re really after.

They looked people in the eye and had genuine concern for their eternal destiny

Everything about their demeanor, countenance, tone of voice, facial expressions, and the like, demonstrated love and concern for the person they were talking to. They never got excited or heated. They never talked fast, and talked to each individual slowly and thoroughly as to be as understood as possible.

Not only that, but they only addressed the person right in front of them, not condescendingly address the crowd with what the person asked or said as to use it to their advantage. That may draw more of a crowd, but you lose the person your witnessing to by potentially embarrassing them and make them look stupid in front of others.

Did not sugar-coat wickedness

Starting at 16:16 and ending at 19:37, unrepentant sin and wickedness was addressed and clearly pointed out by Russ on the streets of the Iowa State Fair. He does a good job of standing his ground getting his point across without getting hostile or heated. Russ shares his thoughts directly to those people while looking them in the eye which should make people think. He speaks directly to those people in a tone loud enough for them to hear and answer, but not soft either to be misinterpreted as muttering under his breath. Others outside the conversation are intentionally eavesdropping, which works to an advantage.

It’s interesting how dissenters will accuse you of judging others make judgment calls themselves against you. Various times this happened, and both preachers do a good job of pointing it out. The father of two who got mad at Russ and told him to be quiet and change the conversation (18:22) didn’t have a right to tell him what to do. What is even more interesting are those who advocate for the murder of children who have children themselves, and advocate for abortion right in front of them!

I’ll be honest, I struggle to keep emotion out of the conversation when it comes to responding to direct attacks, and looks more like reacting than anything. There was one instance at the fair that I lost my composure being verbally attacked by a Muslim teen. I was trying to make a point and get him to think, but I’m afraid I ended up losing him and his friends. This was a good reminder of that.

Bonus: The weirdest interaction: 19:38 – 27:03

The bonus conversation and the strangest one at that, was towards the end when a man in an red East High School shirt, Danny, came by and talked with the two men separately. Their interaction is important because it gives us an example of what to do with the potentially crazy, or worse, the potentially demonic. I tend to lean towards the latter because what he says in many ways doesn’t make sense, and tries to sway the conversation into nothingness, which is a total distraction from what the abolitionists are doing.

What they both do almost immediately is to ask questions to draw the person out and understand where he is coming from. This is key, and using as many questions as possible is necessary with a person like this.

Since questions are inquisitive in nature and not accusatory, they tend to diffuse what could be a potentially hostile conversation. It’s only when (1) the preachers don’t get the answers they want that they have to result in asserting something, and (2) use statements to help this guy make some sense.

We can’t say that Danny the “Eastsider” was intentionally sending them down a rabbit hole to distract them from other potential conversations, but we see how the conversation stays on track by going back to the original question without deviating into what Danny wanted to talk about. What we can surmise about Danny is that he wanted to control the situation and talk about what he wanted to talk about for whatever reason. Russ kept bringing it back to the topic at hand.

They also made light-hearted conversation with the man, and smiled as they were talking to him, especially when he brought up time travel. When obscure things like this are brought up in a conversation that has nothing to do with the conversation, it’s best to move in a direction of ending it the way Joseph did. Asking a person what their name is and referencing it often helps diffuse tension.

What did you see?

So what are some lessons we should learn that you saw through these interactions with the crowd at the Iowa State Fair? Was something missed that we need to learn? Was something not pointed out that needed to be addressed? Would you have had the conversations differently? Please add it to the comment section below and your reasoning for them. We all would like to know.

---

Would you like to receive more articles like this directly to your inbox? Consider subscribing below.