Jesus was explicit: when a town doesn’t receive the disciples, shake the dust off your feet and move on (Matt. 10:14). This wasn’t a license for laziness or indifference — Jesus loved the rich young ruler who walked away (Mark 10:21). But continued investment in those who have clearly closed is poor stewardship of limited time and energy.
Warren’s question is sharply put: is it good stewardship to continue pursuing someone who has rejected the Gospel a dozen times, while an entire community of receptive people waits to hear it for the first time? The question answers itself.
The spiritual logic is about the Holy Spirit’s movement: receptivity is not random. The Spirit prepares specific people at specific moments. Someone who is genuinely open is open now — and the window may close as life circumstances change. Spending that window badgering someone who is clearly not open is not more faithful; it is less responsive to the Spirit.
This requires discernment, not a hard rule. Persistence has its place — many people who eventually responded weren’t immediately receptive. The principle applies to chronic, clear, repeated rejection: not the hard question, not the slow warm-up, but the person who has unambiguously said no for years and shows no signs of movement.
The practical implication: evangelistic energy should be distributed proportionally to spiritual receptivity. This is not about giving up on people as people — it is about trusting the Spirit’s timing and directing effort where the Spirit is already moving.