09.28.04
Posted in faith at 10:31 am by
Well, I’m home. 24 hours of driving made last weekend a doosie. The good news: the wedding took and I am now the proud owner of my second sister-in-law. (Barring any menopause babies this should be my last.) It was fun to be a best man, but stressful too.
On to business. I was reading over at Balaam’s Ass. The guys–and this is the correct term, no women post there–there are not of one accord with my worldview, but what the hey, variety is the spice of life (read: I like to get worked up over what they write.) Anywho, one gentleman, Michael I believe wrote this:
Can evangelism be non-confrontational?
I do not think it can. If we are defining “evangelism” as Gospel proclamation to unbelievers, God’s Word will always upset the sinner. For those individuals who do not have the Holy Spirit, evangelism will always be confrontational. The Holy Spirit will kill and make alive. That is quite the confrontation, and I am glad it happened (happens) to me.
I disagree. What we have here is a classic modernist interpretation of our charge as Christians to evangelize. I’d like to examine the comment.
When evangelism IS confrontational the “confronter” (or evangelist) is stuck in the unfortunate position of saying far more than the words she or he speaks. I am of the opinion that one’s words should be the last resort when it comes to evangelism. One’s words are too easily misunderstood, misinterpreted, or worse yet, not accurate altogether.
I would pose that it’s not God’s word that upsets the sinner, it’s the disconnect between God’s word and the actions of the confronter that causes frustration and hatred of the message. The truth is that there is a chasm between the intent of the message being sent and the reception of the message being received. A message sent in love may well be a message received that is certainly not received lovingly.
When will Christians begin to understand that the messages they send carry with them a whole culture full of nasty baggage, from hate speech against homosexuals to the savagery of the crusades. The messages we send arouse visions of Jimmy Swaggart and Tammy Faye, of Jerry Falwell and Joel Osteen, of Ken Hamm and Kirk Cameron.
Words are important and valuable, but they are a last resort. Our actions need to lead the day. Let’s show up at a gay parade to show our love for an often sidelined group of people. Let’s not come with “turn or burn” messages, but messages that say, you’re welcome to worship with us just the way you are. Then, when these sidelined folks do come…let’s do something unprecedented. Let’s do love.
But as it stands Christians send out messages with reckless abandon. Stupidly sowing seeds into a bed of thorns and hoping beyond hope that one or two seeds will take, ignoring all the others that don’t. Well, I say that sucks. Evangelism is work, and yes God does change the people, we don’t do that. But God gave us a book and a life to show us just how to love people.
Christians just can’t seem to understand why people would ever NOT want to be Christians. If you ask me, with the messages we send, I can’t understand why anyone ever would want to be a Christian. Sometimes, those messages even make me wonder. Is that the same group that I’m a part of? The answer, of course, is yes. It is. Which is why it’s so important that we get our story straight.
Perhaps, it’s just the “confrontational” language that bothers me about the above comment. Maybe I’m not suggesting something radically different. But it seems to me that evangelism has become something of an idol for Christians. We worship evangelism, and we worship evangelists. The brave souls that go out and do the work of “the Kingdom.” But, what if those who garner our respect are no more worthy of that respect than the humble farmer who harvests his crops dutifully, and gives generously to the local homeless shelter. The working single mom who loves her kids so much that she stays up late every night just to make their lunch. The married couple that climbs past the rocks in their marriage to model love and reconciliation. To me, that’s the work of “The Kingdom,” that’s evangelism.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/28/evangelism_again/trackback/
Posted in faith at 10:31 am by
Well, I’m home. 24 hours of driving made last weekend a doosie. The good news: the wedding took and I am now the proud owner of my second sister-in-law. (Barring any menopause babies this should be my last.) It was fun to be a best man, but stressful too.
On to business. I was reading over at Balaam’s Ass. The guys–and this is the correct term, no women post there–there are not of one accord with my worldview, but what the hey, variety is the spice of life (read: I like to get worked up over what they write.) Anywho, one gentleman, Michael I believe wrote this:
Can evangelism be non-confrontational?
I do not think it can. If we are defining “evangelism” as Gospel proclamation to unbelievers, God’s Word will always upset the sinner. For those individuals who do not have the Holy Spirit, evangelism will always be confrontational. The Holy Spirit will kill and make alive. That is quite the confrontation, and I am glad it happened (happens) to me.
I disagree. What we have here is a classic modernist interpretation of our charge as Christians to evangelize. I’d like to examine the comment.
When evangelism IS confrontational the “confronter” (or evangelist) is stuck in the unfortunate position of saying far more than the words she or he speaks. I am of the opinion that one’s words should be the last resort when it comes to evangelism. One’s words are too easily misunderstood, misinterpreted, or worse yet, not accurate altogether.
I would pose that it’s not God’s word that upsets the sinner, it’s the disconnect between God’s word and the actions of the confronter that causes frustration and hatred of the message. The truth is that there is a chasm between the intent of the message being sent and the reception of the message being received. A message sent in love may well be a message received that is certainly not received lovingly.
When will Christians begin to understand that the messages they send carry with them a whole culture full of nasty baggage, from hate speech against homosexuals to the savagery of the crusades. The messages we send arouse visions of Jimmy Swaggart and Tammy Faye, of Jerry Falwell and Joel Osteen, of Ken Hamm and Kirk Cameron.
Words are important and valuable, but they are a last resort. Our actions need to lead the day. Let’s show up at a gay parade to show our love for an often sidelined group of people. Let’s not come with “turn or burn” messages, but messages that say, you’re welcome to worship with us just the way you are. Then, when these sidelined folks do come…let’s do something unprecedented. Let’s do love.
But as it stands Christians send out messages with reckless abandon. Stupidly sowing seeds into a bed of thorns and hoping beyond hope that one or two seeds will take, ignoring all the others that don’t. Well, I say that sucks. Evangelism is work, and yes God does change the people, we don’t do that. But God gave us a book and a life to show us just how to love people.
Christians just can’t seem to understand why people would ever NOT want to be Christians. If you ask me, with the messages we send, I can’t understand why anyone ever would want to be a Christian. Sometimes, those messages even make me wonder. Is that the same group that I’m a part of? The answer, of course, is yes. It is. Which is why it’s so important that we get our story straight.
Perhaps, it’s just the “confrontational” language that bothers me about the above comment. Maybe I’m not suggesting something radically different. But it seems to me that evangelism has become something of an idol for Christians. We worship evangelism, and we worship evangelists. The brave souls that go out and do the work of “the Kingdom.” But, what if those who garner our respect are no more worthy of that respect than the humble farmer who harvests his crops dutifully, and gives generously to the local homeless shelter. The working single mom who loves her kids so much that she stays up late every night just to make their lunch. The married couple that climbs past the rocks in their marriage to model love and reconciliation. To me, that’s the work of “The Kingdom,” that’s evangelism.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/28/evangelism_again/trackback/
Visiting Atheist said,
September 28, 2004 at 4:54 pm
I’ve never been much bothered by the “unloving” nature of most overt witnessing. One apologetic that I find persuasive is that if your standards are high enough you’re bound to fall short of them in one way or another. (In some cases, particularly the “lying for Jesus” flavors of evangelism, I would argue that sometimes sharing the faith represents a lowering of moral standards rather than an increase. Still, it’s charitable to give people the benefit of the doubt.)
What often bothers me about overt witnessing are the disconnects between different parts of the message: red flags that tell me that perhaps what I’m hearing isn’t altogether consistent.
1) They profess what they call the gospel, or in Greek, the euangelion–literally, “good news”. Yet this news is that there’s a fiery place of torment [or its equivalent] where most of humanity will spend eternity writhing in agony. The fact that they claim to offer a get-out-of-hell-free card does little to mitigate this sociopathic revelation. I am honestly at a loss to conceive of some coherent standard by which this news might be called good.
2) They profess to believe in a God of whom I must be in constant terror, so powerful is his essence and so all-consuming his wrath; yet they are so unafraid of this God that they presume to speak for him and freely present their opinions as his immutable judgments.
3) The witnessers who have targeted me in particular have claimed to care deeply about every aspect of my person–my mind, social life and soul in particular (which I find indescribably creepy, but not inconsistent). Yet with only a handful of exceptions, no one found my mind sufficiently interesting to listen to a word I had to say. No one at all who professed deep concern for my social life (people who didn’t even know my name, you understand) cared to ask me anything about it. I don’t deny that it’s possible to care deeply for something you know nothing about, but I have no idea how people can do that, particularly when it’s so easy to learn more: just shut up and listen.
I think it’s a legitimate philosophical question whether such people can actually believe what they claim to believe. I have no doubt that their beliefs are very important to them, and other than a few megalomaniacs I suspect they usually mean well. Still, as uncharitable as this sounds, I can’t help but think that radical witnessers haven’t the faintest idea what they’re talking about.
I like your idea of wordless evangelism, but that term still unsettles me a bit; when some of my Christian friends talk about “evangelizing” I’m worried that they see me less as a person than as an object to be saved, and I sometimes worry that they’re talking about me behind my back in a prayer group or something.
Anyway, just thought I’d offer a view from the outside. It’s worth every penny you paid for it.
Cheers,
VA
Brandon said,
September 28, 2004 at 5:24 pm
I think that you voice a fair worry, VA, about the dangers of wordless evangelism. In many cases, I think Christians look at non-Christians like a battle to be won, rather than living breathing human beings. I appreciate your insight!
Benjamin said,
September 28, 2004 at 10:59 pm
Well, this is the sort of thing I’d expect from a Communard - what kind of lifestyle would your “wordless” evangelism promote? Some silliness modeled after the Sermon on the Mount no doubt. It would be far better to concentrate on people as a spiritual headcount, to be added and subtracted from the Great Payroll System in the Sky.
Besides which, I thought you were a Calvinist - haven’t the saved already been elected? Or at least selected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Celestial Court. Wait, that might be Mormonism, never mind….
Brandon said,
September 28, 2004 at 11:37 pm
Ah…election…the tricksiest of all of Calvinisms tennants. Have the saved already been elected? My answer, as a Calvinist, I don’t know.
Headless-in-GR said,
September 29, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Hey good post, BC. I know that some people grow into the Kingdom - I know I did, so I was never “confronted”…but, I find myself confronted or called or maybe shepherded (?) every day…
Tim said,
October 6, 2004 at 12:09 am
Hey, thanks for the link.
Anyway, I think you might have missed Mike’s point. What he meant was that God’s Law and God’s Gospel do the work of evangelization, not sideshows and attractions designed to bring in “seekers.” Your point is valid, and I don’t think sincere Christians would disagree. However, there are any number of people who are not Christians who could say “Be nice to people,” etc. Perhaps that’s part of why so many people think “being good” is what Christianity is about. Of course, words and actions should not be contrary to each other, but that doesn’t mean they are mutually exclusive within the domain of evangelism.
Tim
Mychelline said,
October 6, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Just found your site today. I’m a former Christian who works in an office filled with evangelical Christians. Yesterday I was treated to an earful about how homosexuals are an abomination and should all be run out of town for daring to exist. Funny how all the people making jokes (!) about this stuff pride themselves on being good Christians. (One of the women inserts “Praise Jesus!” into every conversation, no matter what the topic is.) Once again, I’m thankful I’m not Christian, because these people give me the willies. I’m glad to see, based on your site, that all Christians are not the unthinking bigots that I’m always meeting. :-/
Brandon said,
October 6, 2004 at 1:10 pm
Mychelline,
Thanks for stopping by. It turns my stomach to hear your story. Accept my apologies for that injustice you witnessed.
Feel free to come by anytime!