Long time readers will know I have been involved in open air outreach and cold contact evangelism for most of my life. As I argued here, I am really quite in favour of it. In this follow up several years later, context and available resources might determine the priority you give them but I maintained they were a good means of outreach. I lead with this because it shouldn’t be said I have any sort of problem with open air work. I am nothing but an advocate for it in the right context.

Which brings me to the point I want to raise here. I saw a Christian Today article which noted the latest example of a street preacher being arrested. You can read it here. Premier Christianity also highlighted the same story here. I have since heard voices speaking about government overreach, clampdowns on Christian speakers and the general persecution of Christians in our country with reference to these sorts of stories.

But I think this story does highlight something helpful for us. In the particular case, the police were really quite clear. Surrey Police Force stated the following:

“We are aware there’s been some concerns around a man causing annoyance, upset and distress to the local community and businesses of Guildford Town Centre.” 

“Officers have spoken to the man and issued him with a Community Protection Notice which prohibits him from causing annoyance, upset and distress to the local community and businesses of Surrey and Sussex.

“He is also prohibited from using any amplification in any public place in the county of Surrey or Sussex (this list is not exclusive but includes microphone, loud hailer and loudspeaker).

“The order is not related to the content being said, but the volume and the nature of its amplification.”

Do you notice the issue here? No problem with what was being said, there was an issue with how it was being said. Most specifically, an issue with the volume at which it was being said. The man was welcome to continue preaching and say what he wants. He was welcome to continue quoting the bible. He was not welcome to continue amplifying at great volume what he had to say.

Just imagine you ran a shop and somebody decided to stand outside and blow one solitary note on a trumpet for three hours straight. Not only that, but they amplified it so it could be heard around the precinct. Would you consider it heavy-handed for the police to gently ask the person to turn it down and, if they refused, to move them on? Might local noise by-laws have some relevance? Sure, you may find some avant-garde enthusiast who really appreciates this for the devastating performance art that it no doubt claims to be. But it is just as likely large proportions of the public will find it down right obnoxious. Faced with swathes of complaints under those circumstances, what are we expecting the police the do here?

I have been involved in open air outreach for 30 years and I have simply never had these problems with police. I have never personally been stopped from saying anything and, a number of times, police have been in the area (not for us specifically as far as I’m aware) and they were never led to come and stop us. The law clearly defends our right to speak freely and – given we are aiming to win people to the gospel for Christ – we are not out to pick fights and cause controversy. That is not to say controversy never arose, but we were generally careful – wise as serpents and all that – in how we answered. We aren’t there to pick fights or antagonise; we are there to point to Jesus and his gospel.

Likewise, we never used amplification. This was for the simple reason that we want people to draw in and engage, not to stand off and hear from a distance. Those who don’t want to engage we didn’t want to force into engagement. And we really wanted to engage people, not shout at them. We wanted to draw them in, have a worthwhile conversation and perhaps leave them with some literature that they are more likely to take if we treat them respectfully. Whilst we spoke loudly enough for somebody walking by to hear us clearly, we were not so loud that you would hear us over the music playing in shops nor that you couldn’t avoid us if you wished. We were at most as loud as (and typically a lot less loud than) the buskers in the same street.

Do I have utter confidence that I would never encounter problems from the police in doing this? No. I am aware the police can be over-zealous in how they apply the law and are often driven more by maintaining public order than they are by what the law permits. Both of these things can combine at times to lead some to attempt to move street preachers on, or even shut them down, because it is easier to maintain the peace this way than to stop a bigger group from aggressively attacking them. Particularly, it must be said, when you have arrived as a couple of officers facing a much larger group. Whilst the police should protect those doing what the law permits from those threatening to do what it does not, I understand why they sometimes follow the path of least resistance. There are also plenty of examples of police pay outs that seem to acknowledge their failures on these things some of the time.

However, it bears saying, in 30 years of open air work I have never been, nor witnessed, police shutting down our right to preach freely. I have never been moved on by them. The closest I can recall is one person complaining to a police officer that they didn’t like what the person who happened to be preaching at the time was saying. The officer replied something to effect, ‘If it were up to me I wouldn’t let them, but they’re free to do it’. Which perhaps undercut the ‘without fear or favour’ sense of unbiased policing but still, we were legally entitled to preach and this particular police officer did nothing to hinder our ability to do so. And, again, I must point out I can only recall one incident of this kind in 30 years of regular street evangelism.

Which brings me back to the particular case above. Very often, what gets highlighted as police overreach or crackdowns on preachers is due to altogether different concerns. In this case, it is not the freedom to preach the gospel that was at issue; it was noise and nuisance. There simply was no restriction imposed on the ability to freely preach nor to quote the bible. The preacher was simply asked to stop using a microphone.

I think we need to be very careful before jumping to accusations of persecution or inhibiting religious freedom. Not least, I think in the cases where that really might be at issue, we undermine our case like the boy who cried wolf.

The law clearly protects our right to preach in this country and, for the most part, the police know this and do not hinder us. Very often, where there have been issues, it becomes clear other issues are at play. Preachers would be wise to ensure that that they are not actively being a nuisance and that not only what they preach commends Jesus, but the way they preach it commends him too. All too often a persecution complex kicks in and a reliance on the letter of British law is invoked rather than proper care taken to ensure we are rightly heralding the gospel – in word and deed, by content and means – and doing so in line with the much higher standard of God’s Word, which has much to say about seeking to win people and the manner in which we might do so. For what has the preacher really done if he can insist on his freedom in British law but cannot justify his approach with reference to the law of Christ?

Too many go out with a desire to be controversial. Too many go out with a penchant for a fight. Too many go out buoyed by a British law they insist makes them free with little sense that the love of Christ would constrain them. Too many are quick to cry persecution without reckoning that they may have so acted to invite scorn upon themselves. Loving people doesn’t mean less than telling them the gospel, but we can’t escape that it certainly means more.