Evangelism Adventure: Hollywood Anti-War Protest

Mar 16, 2011Steve Sanchez34 CommentsAA- EVANGELISM SCHEDULE

The best way to describe this event is that there are 3-5,000 adults convening who were never disciplined by their parents as children. Or: If God took the restraining power of His Holy Spirit from the earth, it would look something like this gathering.

These people are against everything we as Christians are for, and are for everything we are against, for the most part. They are so far left President Obama is considered a conservative. (Read the whole 10 part series from the 2009 protest here.)

We are going to have a blast as an evangelism team, because—Hoo-Boy!—these people need the Lord.

At a previous time we were able to get Gospel tracts into most of the demonstrators hands; see the creative way we did it below:

If you’d like to get an overview of what the whole event looks like from a preacher’s perspective—all the yelling, screaming, anger and foolishness, and this from the marchers—watch this next video:

ALL HANDS ON DECK! WE NEED YOU TO COME THIS SATURDAY!!! Here’s the agenda and meeting times:

Meet at Hope Chapel at a SPECIAL TIME: 10am. We will first stop at Pink’s Hot Dogs on La Brea to preach to the line (see the video here), then park at the underground parking at Hollywood Blvd. and Highland (under the Kodak Theater). The march convenes on the corner of Hollywood and Vine at noon.

Want to meet us up there? Drive and park in the underground lot at Hollywood and Highland or take the Metro Rail and get off at Vine St. Walk to the corner of Hollywood and Vine. We’ll be there at about noon. Notice: If you get there ahead of time, do not, I repeat, ~~do not~~ open air preach. You will give away our covert operation. We preach when the march starts.

After the march ends about 3pm or so, we will all go to eat at In N’ Out Burger where one of us will preach to the patrons inside. This is a tradition. (See the video here.)

Then we will head back to Pink’s Hot Dogs again and preach one more time.

If you need more info, email me at [email protected] or call me at 310-374-4673 x.121.

Comments (34)

perdita
March 16, 2011
Reply
“The best way to describe this event is that there are 3-5,000 adults convening who were never disciplined by their parents as children. Or: If God took the restraining power of His Holy Spirit from the earth, it would look something like this gathering. These people are against everything we, as Christians are for, and are for everything we are against, for the most part. They are so far left, they consider President Obama a conservative.”
Wow, Steve. I’m so glad you don’t demonize people on the basis of their political leanings. I’m so glad you don’t fall victim to thinking that the Republican party is the only party for real true Christians. And glad you would never do or say anything that might offend a Christian with a different political philosophy. I’m glad you don’t judge those people you profess to love and try to make cheap jokes at their expense.
- Steve Sanchez
  March 16, 2011
  Reply
  perdita,
  You’ve never been to one of these have you? It’s exactly as I described. These people are radically wild, confused and communist.
  I’m barely exaggerating when I use those descriptive words.
  This, by the way, has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat.
  And yes, we do love them, crazy ideology and all.
Garrett
March 16, 2011
Reply
So…Christians are pro-war now?
perdita
March 16, 2011
Reply
Steve, with all respect, do you not see that you’re politicizing a call to preach?
But, I have to say, making a common enemy is a pretty good way of massing a group and getting them on-fire.
- Steve Sanchez
  March 16, 2011
  Reply
  Are Christians pro-war? Righteous wars. Like getting Hitler out. Or Sadaam.
  perdita,
  Yes, the common enemy here is Satan, who have captured these poor people to do his bidding. We can all rally against that.
Vagon
March 16, 2011
Reply
Despite your assertion that anti-war protesters are against everything Christian they are by definition only against war. You’ve done this with the term Atheist in the past too. If you want to be effective you need to think more clearly so that you understand your goals.
I imagine here the goal is to bring people to Jesus. Therefore I have a suggestion for anyone thinking of attending this evangelising session. Instead of talking to these protestors are not in the frame of mind to be evangelised to, talk to us. Answer our questions.
Going after an anti-war demonstration is the easy option. They will probably be thinking about the horrors of war, not prepared to hear and think about what you say. You wont be engaged in conversation and you wont be held accountable. This is not the environment to gain understanding.
By contrast the atheists on this blog have shown time and time again that we are willing to listen and think critically about what you say. Engage us rather than dodging or ignoring our questions. You will think more clearly and ultimately become better at achieving or refining your goals.
- Steve Sanchez
  March 16, 2011
  Reply
  Again, I’m talking about these particular protesters, not every protester.
  Please read my 10 part series that includes two one-to-one video interviews to get a perspective.
  And we’ve all answered your questions….
Garrett
March 16, 2011
Reply
You do realize that Saddam’s been dead for years now, right?
And that this war is getting a lot of young men killed for seemingly little? Things aren’t getting all that better in Afghanistan.
- Steve Sanchez
  March 16, 2011
  Reply
  I hate war, too.
Vagon
March 16, 2011
Reply
Steve wrote: “I’m talking about these particular protesters, not every protester.”
Perhaps you’re right, but in any case the point still stands.
“And we’ve all answered your questions…”
Please refer to the comments on your bridge out post:
https://stonethepreacher.com/2011/03/08/bridge-out.html#comments
It can be summed up in short by what Nohm said “if it’s all based on faith, how do I choose between Christianity and Islam?”
Bizzle
March 17, 2011
Reply
Steve, I am against war. We didn’t need to get Saddam out. The WMD lie was used to get us to back a war the military-industrial complex wanted.
I would imagine God is staunchly anti-war. He doesn’t want his children killing each other.
Nameless Cynic
March 17, 2011
Reply
Steve,
Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? Was it to oust Saddam (who, by the way, was certainly no worse than, say, the Saudi government)? What was the initial reason we invaded?
See, that whole “ousting a dictator” thing was an afterthought. Justification for the invasion of a sovereign country.
If you’ll recall, the original reason was the fear that he had “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Which our intel had already ruled out. Which UN weapons inspectors had already said didn’t exist. (Now, you can understand why we might think so – after all, we sold ’em to them back in the 80s. But still…)
Incidentally, regarding these hippies, didn’t Jesus wear a robe and sandals? Seems like He might have more in common with the counterculture than the stiffs.
Anti-war? Isaiah 2:4.
“communist”? “Socialist”? Acts 4:32-37
Do they smoke pot? Genesis 9:3
Radical? Wild? Weird-looking? Romans 14:10 (and, of course, Luke 6:37)
Glenn Parker
March 17, 2011
Reply
Vagon,
You said “how do I choose between Christianity and Islam?”
Are you serious? Have you really come to the place where you *KNOW* that there is a God who made you and the only thing you’ve left to figure out is whether it’s Allah or the God of the Bible?
If so, the choice is amazingly easy. In fact, even a 5 year old can figure it out. (I actually know some who could answer your questions) But, something tells me you don’t even believe in God.
Anyway, here’s your answer: would you rather (1) work your way to heaven, never knowing where you stand, and hoping with all your might that your good outweighs your bad and striving to be like the Prophet, who himself claimed to have beheaded over 800 Jews and Christians, or (2) repent of your sin, trust in the sacrifice of God’s Son, and know without any doubt that your debt is paid? Your call.
Really. It’s your call.
Garrett
March 17, 2011
Reply
So the restraining power of God stops us from peaceful protests?
Far worse than the silly rape and murder stuff!
Garrett
March 17, 2011
Reply
Glenn, that doesn’t state which is correct. Just what you’d prefer.
Try again.
vintango2k
March 17, 2011
Reply
Very amusing videos Steve,
“Put this in your pocket.”
That line surprised me so much I had to play it twice, never heard you be so demanding when it came to people accepting the tracts you had out. But I understand, you’re pretty far out of your comfort zone amongst those people. Hence why no mention of Jesus when you’re passing out tracts, that part always caused me to scratch my head. Why do you resort to deception or word play when handing out these tracts, why not hand out a tract and say ‘Jesus loves you.’ or something along those lines? Are you ashamed of your faith? Or are you afraid you will cause a scene of some sort? If its the latter then why?
Nohm
March 17, 2011
Reply
Glenn wrote: “would you rather…”
Glenn, are you actually suggesting that if I would rather go the Islamic route (and, obviously, they would disagree with your description of it), then it would work?
I can’t imagine that you’re suggesting that, so I’m confused that, when asked whether A or B is real, you would ask which one we’d “rather” do.
Which one we’d “rather” do is irrelevant to deciding which one is correct.
Glenn Parker
March 17, 2011
Reply
Nohm,
Would you rather (1) argue semantics and word meanings while never arriving at truth, or (2) admit your sin and humble yourself before a Holy God and inherit Life?
- Steve Sanchez
  March 17, 2011
  Reply
  Glenn,
  They’d rather do (1)…
  …and ask more questions.
perdita
March 18, 2011
Reply
Arguing semantics? It looks more like asking for clarification.
Do you agree that what we’d ‘rather’ do is irrelevant to determining which one is correct?
For my to humble myself before a Holy God, I would have to know that there was a Holy God. Otherwise it would be gross hypocrisy or embarrassing play acting.
Christopher
March 18, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn & Steve
Would you both rather (1) Argue semantics, and continually dodge questions or (2) admit that you worship your own ego and fall down upon your knees, confess your fundie sins and forsake your ego worship?
Your choice really.
Garrett
March 18, 2011
Reply
Glenn, you deserve a medal for your laughable defense.
I’m assuming you have no idea what “semantics” mean. We’re not arguing semantics: we’re saying that reality is not determined by choosing what we prefer.
Now, it’d be great if I had a honey-baked ham every Friday as opposed to rotting steak. But just choosing one of those options does not mean I’m going to get my ham on. Maybe the store is out ham, or perhaps I don’t have enough money for a quality ham.
What if I find the Muslim option preferable? Perhaps I like the idea of working my way into Heaven as opposed to relying on the murder of an innocent? So…is their faith the correct one now? Hopefully you can see the flaw in your reasoning.
The fact that Steve cheerleads such rot makes you something of a comedy duo. If that is your goal: mission accomplished. If you sincerely desire to save souls, then you better work on your game.
Nohm
March 18, 2011
Reply
“Nohm,
Would you rather (1) argue semantics and word meanings while never arriving at truth, or (2) admit your sin and humble yourself before a Holy God and inherit Life?”
I would rather (3) interact with people who think differently than I do and (4) care that what I believe is actually true.
I wasn’t arguing semantics or word meanings, Glenn. I was pointing out that what “I would rather” does not indicate that it is true.
I do not make drastic life decisions based solely on what “I would rather” do.
And Steve, I hope you’re not implying that asking questions is a bad thing to do; it’s how we arrive at answers.
Christopher
March 18, 2011
Reply
@ Glenn
You wrote “Anyway, here’s your answer: would you rather (1) work your way to heaven, never knowing where you stand, and hoping with all your might that your good outweighs your bad and striving to be like the Prophet, who himself claimed to have beheaded over 800 Jews and Christians, or (2) repent of your sin, trust in the sacrifice of God’s Son, and know without any doubt that your debt is paid? Your call.”
Ah but there’s a hitch Glenn. You see if you’re a false convert then you can’t be certain you’re going to heaven & since ANYONE could be a false convert then no one is certain of heaven.
Now you might say that you know that your not a false convert because of the teachings in the bible. Yep. I know people who would have said that too. Right up until the time when they left the faith [and that makes them a false convert according to Comfort]. Or you might say I have the testimony of the Holy Spirit within me assuring me of salvation. Those false converts would have said the same thing.
See what I’m getting at? Steve and Ray Comfort [and perhaps yourself] both believe in the existence of false converts. But if false converts exist then no one can be certain of heaven. See the problem?
Glenn Parker
March 18, 2011
Reply
To all the atheists who argue semantics (and even the one confused by the word “semantics”):
Following standard rules of English, I had hoped you’d see the absurdity of one of the options. However, I forgot that you are blinded by the god of this world and cannot see the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You don’t merely have glaucoma. You are blind.
However, as a minister of the Gospel, I pray that your darkened understanding will turn to wisdom, and that your day of repentance is near. I pray that your excuses will be recognized as such and I pray that you will see the futility of man’s “wisdom”. I pray that one day you will be ashamed of the person that you are now and for your own sakes I pray that day comes sooner rather than later.
Garrett
March 18, 2011
Reply
Glenn still needs a dictionary. Maybe for Easter?
Glenn, I find both options ridiculous. But absurdity does not mean falsehood. If you have evidence then I’m listening and won’t immediately throw something out just because it sounds silly to me.
But you have no evidence, and so you’re pouting and calling us blind in the hopes that we won’t call attention to the fact that you have no given us evidence.
I don’t care if Muslims worship a polka-dancing chicken, it does not make your faith any more true. If you have no evidence, then don’t speak up.
Nohm
March 18, 2011
Reply
“I had hoped you’d see the absurdity of one of the options.”
Glenn, I think it’s obvious that we did, but you presented a false dichotomy and misrepresented one of the options. Anyone can do that. It’s not persuasive.
Glenn, I could make a false dichotomy between secular humanism and a very distorted description of Christianity. Would that be persuasive to you?
I would assume not, which is why presenting a false dichotomy and then distorting one of the options while only mentioning the positives of the other option is not persuasive to us.
In fact, to me, it’s dispersuasive.
Glenn also wrote: “I pray that you will see the futility of man’s “wisdom””
Glenn, the problem with that comment is that man’s “wisdom” is how we have these computers that we’re using to communicate with each other. Man’s “wisdom” has a long history of accomplishing things; of working. You use the products of man’s “wisdom” every hour of every day, even when you’re asleep.
I haven’t seen a better alternative to man’s “wisdom”, at least not yet.
Lastly, regarding semantics, if you didn’t intend to imply that truth is based on which choice we’d rather do (and I hope you agree that reality is not based on what we’d rather it be), then what did you intend that to mean?
Glenn Parker
March 19, 2011
Reply
Nohm,
Please state how I misrepresented Islam. If they are not to mimic the Prophet, then you better alert all the local Imams. If Mohammed did not claim to have murdered over 800 Jews and Christians, then you better alert the Koran publishers.
Glenn Parker
March 19, 2011
Reply
Garrett, I am not simply calling you blind. I am restating what God has said about you. Take it up with Him and I hope that He will open your eyes.
Besides, *calling* you blind would be like calling my wife a woman or my car an automobile. Like it or not, you have the evidence you claim to be searching for.
Nohm, your lack of understanding does not make it a false dichotomy. You are at a loss to choose which is correct, but mocking the questions on a test simply keeps you from graduating.
Christopher
March 19, 2011
Reply
Ah Glenn
I see you’ve chosen option 1. Still arguing semantics and dodging questions. Is giving up the worship of your ego so horrible a thought? Is it possible for the great Glenn to be wrong? To be wrong about the interpretation of scripture? To even be mistaken that scripture is the word of God?
If you admit that you can be mistaken then perhaps you should consider evidence rather than just your interpretation of things.
Or is the worship of ego to irresistable?
Oh and by the way…I’m not an atheist. You’re talking to a Zoroastrian here.
Christopher
March 19, 2011
Reply
I wrote “Would you both rather (1) Argue semantics, and continually dodge questions or (2) admit that you worship your own ego and fall down upon your knees, confess your fundie sins and forsake your ego worship?”
You responded by declaring it merely a semantic game.
Now since the post I’ve quoted is merely a paraphrasing of an earlier post by you and you seem to believe this is merely playing semantics it follows that YOU are the one playing semantics and are blind to it. The very thing you accuse others of.
Do I think you will learn from this? No. That is the sad thing.
perdita
March 19, 2011
Reply
…(and even the one confused by the word “semantics”)
Was that comment directed towards me? Is so, I’m rather confused as to what you mean. To me, ‘arguing semantics’ is focusing on a trivial point – specifically relating to word usage – and avoiding the larger argument. But I don’t think that clarification on word usage is always trivial or used to ignore an argument.
For example, the definition of the word ‘theory’ includes a specific, scientific usage as well as a more general common usage. When discussing a statement, is pointing out that another person is using the general common usage when the author meant the scientific usage ‘arguing semantics’? If a person makes a statement that seems to conflict with that person’s prior statements, is asking for clarification ‘arguing semantics’?
If a person is told that they misunderstand a term, is asking that other person what they meant and how it was misunderstood, ‘arguing semantics’?
Garrett
March 19, 2011
Reply
Glenn, again, you’re trying to hide the fact that you have no evidence.
State what the evidence is. That’s it. Stop playing games.
Vagon
March 20, 2011
Reply
“Are you serious? Have you really come to the place where you *KNOW* that there is a God who made you and the only thing you’ve left to figure out is whether it’s Allah or the God of the Bible?”
No I’m not serious – it’s a form of argument. In this case it has been very effective in showing that you simply choose to believe in your particular god because you would “rather” it was real than not.
The comment has also been effective in providing observable evidence that Steve has not answered the question. Glenn considering Steve said this:
“we’ve all answered your questions….”
Did he break one of evangelical Christianity’s key set of commandments?