If your home were on fire, wouldn’t you do everything in your power to raise the alarm and lead everyone to safety?
It’s from sentiments like this where proselytisers come from. They are called to witness because God wants them to save the rest of us from hellfire.
To be saved, you take on beliefs that argue for a suppression of critical thinking, a subsidiary role for women, an aversion of sexual health, a disdain for unmarried partners and parents and an intolerance of homosexuals. In other words, the price of salvation is the acceptance of bigotry.
If I were to ask people to take on such an intolerant position, I would need to be absolutely sure my own beliefs were rock solid. I would need to hold myself to the very highest standards of evidence. Testimonials would not be enough, because people can be fooled. Personal evidence would not be enough, because I can be fooled. It would not be enough to listen to a charismatic teacher or read a compelling book. I would actively seek out positions that contradict my views to see if alternative interpretations are possible. I would try not to rationalise but instead accept countering evidence on its own merits. I would try my best to become free from the hold of confirmation bias on my thinking patterns. I would want to be in a position to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that my house was indeed on fire.
This is not what we get from proselytisers of every hue. They are calling us to change our lives without having applied any rigour to their own views. We should be under no obligation to surrender our humanity just because the person looks trustworthy or friendly, or because of the emotional packaging in which they wrap such life denying views.
Is our house on fire? They don’t have a clue.
Passive Impressions 
Yes the price of salvation may very well be the acceptance of bigotry, but I would argue that what proselytisers often don’t seem to get, or can’t bring themselves to face, is that the price can be higher when “It divides heart from heart.” as Edmund Gosse put it in ‘Father and Son’ http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2540 ,
“Let me speak plainly. After my long experience, after my patience and forbearance, I have surely the right to protest against the untruth (would that I could apply to it any other word!) that evangelical religion, or any religion in a violent form, is a wholesome or valuable or desirable adjunct to human life. It divides heart from heart. It sets up a vain, chimerical ideal, in the barren pursuit of which all the tender, indulgent affections, all the genial play of life, all the exquisite pleasures and soft resignations of the body, all that enlarges and calms the soul are exchanged for what is harsh and void and negative. It encourages a stern and ignorant spirit of condemnation; it throws altogether out of gear the healthy movement of the conscience; it invents virtues which are sterile and cruel; it invents sins which are no sins at all, but which darken the heaven of innocent joy with futile clouds of remorse. There is something horrible, if we will bring ourselves to face it, in the fanaticism that can do nothing with this pathetic and fugitive existence of ours but treat it as if it were the uncomfortable ante-chamber to a palace which no one has explored and of the plan of which we know absolutely nothing. My Father, it is true, believed that he was intimately acquainted with the form and furniture of this habitation, and he wished me to think of nothing else but of the advantages of an eternal residence in it.”
so I would most certainly wish to be in a position to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that my house was indeed on fire, and also to question if there was actually “. . . something horrible . . .” in what their guy allegedly said,
Not Peace, but a Sword
(Lk 12.51–53; 14.26–27) http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/the-bible/search-the-bible/GNB/Matt/10/
34“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.35I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law;36your worst enemies will be the members of your own family.37“Those who love their father or mother more than me are not fit to be my disciples; those who love their son or daughter more than me are not fit to be my disciples.
for whatever else he may of said, seems to me he understood the result of his message.
I believe children need their parents to love them more than what I see as their subjective beliefs, and allow them to reason, but the post Reformation Sola Scriptura conviction is I understand that the Bible must always take precedence over reason.
Click to access Evangelicalism-a-brief-definition.pdf
Guess it would never have worked if the guy said, love your childen more than me.