On evangelism
A few years ago, Jennie and I attended a Baptist church for a year or two. While we were there, they started a social group for “young adults”. (I used to work in a library, so I always think of that phrase in the publishing-industry sense of “younger teens”, but this church took it to mean something more like “twenties and thirties”.)
After a few get-togethers, someone raised the question of what the group should be named. And somebody suggested “POWER” — I think it stood for “People Of Worship, Evangelism, and Religion”.
After a brief hesitation, I spoke up against that name. For three reasons. One, it didn’t describe the group; how was anyone supposed to read that name and know it was a group for Baptist twenties and thirties? (Or even what religion it was, for that matter — could’ve been a group of Scientologists for all the name tells you.) Two, a group that calls itself “POWER” sounds waaaay too much like a white-power, neo-Nazi group. And three, the word “evangelism” is a real turn-off for some people. Including me.
They went with that name anyway. I think I may have gone to one more of their events before I dropped out.
Evangelism offends me for the same reason Fanta commercials offend me: they both start with the assumption that I’m a complete idiot.
See, faith is one thing. I don’t know whether I believe in God, but I do believe in faith. I’ve had the experience of leaning on faith in tough times. It got me through the time in college when I was thinking about suicide. In my case, it was faith in the strength of a friendship. For others, it’s a faith in God, or in themselves, or in freedom, or in their family. It can pull people through rough spots, and even help them turn their lives around. People lay down their lives for it. And it can help people stay alive.
I believe that faith can move mountains. I believe that it may be the most powerful force in the human experience. What I don’t believe is that my faith is automatically right for everyone else.
But where I stop is where evangelism starts: with a faith that is assumed to be the One Truth. And because it’s taken on faith, because it’s taken to be self-evident, it’s automatically beyond debate, beyond reason. It wasn’t reasoned into you, so it can’t be reasoned out. And everyone who believes something different is obviously wrong.
I posted about evangelism a while back, and Brad asked why I took offense at the idea. And he asked a pretty poignant question: do I see evangelists as being Obviously Wrong, Because They Don’t See Things The Way I Do?
I’ve been thinking about that. And I think the answer is, for the most part, no. I am only human, with the occasional arrogance and thoughtlessness that come with the package. But I don’t think the reason I dislike evangelists’ beliefs is just the fact that they’re different from mine.
Last September, one of the youth in our youth group asked me to be his mentor in our “Coming of Age” program. And that’s been interesting, and occasionally challenging — all the more so because he considers himself to be more Christian than Unitarian. He believes in God, and in Heaven and Hell. And I’m thrilled for him. He’s got it all figured out. (Well, maybe not all figured out, but certainly more than me.) And he’s got something to put his faith in. Pretty solid faith, in his case; he’s got a lot of strength and self-assurance for a ninth-grader. But he knows that it’s his faith, and he’s content to let others find their own way.
What offends me about evangelicals is not what they believe about God. What offends me is what they believe about their beliefs. What offends me is that they assume nobody else is capable of making up their own mind. What offends me is their… well, to put it bluntly, their arrogance. And their ignorance.
I don’t accept arrogance as a religious belief. And I don’t accept anyone who assumes everyone else is wrong. You can’t convince me someone is wrong until you can tell me what they’re wrong about — until you’ve at least asked them what they believe.
And even then, if it’s a matter of faith, you’re going to have a damn hard time convincing me that you’re right, and they’re wrong.
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” — Andre Gide (1869-1951)
Now, with all that said…
I’m usually wrong the first time. Like everybody else, I learn by making mistakes. And on some level, I really can’t believe that all evangelism is rooted in arrogance and ignorance. I just can’t come up with any other explanation. This is the sort of thing I tend to need someone else to explain to me.
So I’ll open the floor to you guys. I know there are some Christians reading my blog, and probably some of you consider evangelism to be part of your faith. So tell me. What’s it all about?
Speak up. Challenge my assumptions. (But expect me to challenge yours right back. This could be an interesting discussion.)
May 13th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Joe, you are assuming that anyone who evangelizes is assuming the person they evangelize too is wrong. . .
http://www.mckeeth.org/2005/05/assumptions-on-evangelism.shtml
May 15th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Jim makes some very good points. As usual, Joe believes he found the One True Way, so obviously those of us who are Christians are idiots…
Wait, is this a misrepresentation of what you believe? Who would have thought…
(More seriously, NOBODY "assumes everyone else is wrong". That set is absolutely empty, so - as usual when badmouthing Christianity - you’re fighting a strawman. That’s ok, your programming articles make sense… <g>)
May 15th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Jim: I like your definition of evangelism — better than I liked my own definition. I hope there are many more who think the way you do (although the current political climate leads me to wonder).
Your evangelism is one of mutual respect, which is a refreshing change from the (religious) evangelism I’ve had the bad luck to run into. It’s not "you obviously need to be converted", it’s "I hope you’ll listen to what I have to say, and then make up your own mind". In a way, it’s a very Unitarian sentiment. It’s definitely good to hear that it’s not *just* a Unitarian sentiment.
I’m going to spend some time trying out your definition. I think I’ll come to like the whole idea of evangelism a good bit more than I did when I originally wrote this post. Thanks — and let me know if you want to hang out at the next BorCon, and swap some truths.
Marcel: No, I don’t think Christians are idiots. (There you go with *your* strawmen again. (grin))
I wasn’t complaining about Christians. I was complaining about, as Jim put it, "pushy sales person" evangelists. A great many Christians do *not* fall into that category. None of the Christians I know (and still associate with) come knocking on my door every weekend, trying to bring me to the Light. My beef is strictly with those (relatively few, I hope) that do.
And regarding your empty set… this Baptist group was clear about their belief that Jesus was the Way, and the Truth, and the Light, and nobody cometh to the Father except by accepting Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior. Anyone who disagreed was obviously going to burn in Hell. But in real life, there clearly is room for debate on this subject, as evidenced by the multitude of other religions out there, and even the disagreement among Christians (e.g., the Universalists, who started out as Christians who believed in universal salvation). So, uh… would you care to explain to these Baptists, because they "assume everyone [who disagrees] is wrong", that they’re an empty set and obviously don’t exist? (grin)
May 16th, 2005 at 4:02 am
I never said the set of those who believe "everyone who disagrees with X" is empty. Your initial claim was that there are people who believe that "everyone ELSE is wrong". Those people don’t exist. Nobody believes everyone else is wrong (irrespective of their beliefs).
As for pushy sales people… well, come to think of that, I don’t see you complaining about pushy SALES people <g>. Or about pushy Hare Krishna people. It’s the Christians - and especially, I dare venture a guess, the (neo)protestant Christians - you have a problem with.
BTW, I tend to be a Christian universalist myself. I do believe that you, as a non-Christian whatever, are in for a rough time, because I still believe that Jesus IS the way - but that’s my belief. I *will* nag you with my beliefs in the appropriate forum, make no mistake about it, this is just not it. <g>
Finally, the thing with "Christians are idiots" was an obvious misrepresentation of your opinion - just as your rant about evangelists was an obvious misrepresentation of most of them
May 16th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Okay, perhaps "everyone else" wasn’t the most precise choice of words, given that you managed to misread it. How about "everyone who isn’t part of my group"? Would that be harder to misread? (grin)
And you’re right, I’m not complaining about pushy salespeople — but I haven’t run into very many of them; if I had, I might rant about them too. And I’ve never even met a Hare Krishna. The pushy evangelists I happen to have experience with were all neo-Protestant. I don’t doubt there are plenty of other stripes out there; I just know nothing about them, and have no reason to complain about them at this point. All I can speak from is my own experience, and I’ve had bad experiences with some Christian groups who went around pushing their beliefs onto others. I apologize if this came across as "all Christian evangelists are evil" — I intended it to be more like "the Christian evangelists *I’ve met* tended to come across as being very arrogant". I’ve known many, many Christians that I wouldn’t classify as evangelists in the first place, because they never tried to convert me (my original definition), nor did they share their truth with me as part of an open-minded discussion (Jim’s definition).
As for obvious misrepresentations — do tell. You haven’t really explained where my rant was an "obvious misrepresentation of most" evangelists; you just made up that silly "Christians are idiots" thing. What particular parts of what I said do you consider "obvious misrepresentations"? I’m certainly willing to believe I was wrong, but if you don’t tell me what I was wrong about, I can’t do much about it. (grin)
May 17th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Obvious misrepresentation - let me quote someone else here <g>:
<<Okay, perhaps "everyone else" wasn’t the most precise choice of words>>
<<I apologize if this came across as "all Christian evangelists are evil" — I intended it to be more like "the Christian evangelists *I’ve met* tended to come across as being very arrogant".>>
As for apologizing - I really don’t think you should apologize to me for anything. I believe that people who are offended by words have mental issues, so if I’m ever offended, please remind me that <g>. What I wanted to point out is that you had bad experiences with what must be a very small subset of a group, and instead of saying that, you lashed out against the group as a whole. (You might want to read up, if you ever get some free time, on non-aristotelianism - Korzybski had an obsession with specific statements, and a lot of what he says is worth keeping in mind.)
June 6th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
At this point it doesn’t look like I will be at BorCon. My employer moved away from Borland tools, and Borland doesn’t want me as a speaker.
http://www.bsdg.org/2005/05/devcon-2005-denied.shtml
There is still time that I might make it.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Your worldview is very small. Why does the people in the US talk like the other religion - Islam - does not exist? Can you at least talk about it for once? Why do you ignore? Thanks.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:36 am
I don’t ignore Islam. I just don’t have much to say about it, because I don’t see much of it and don’t know much about it.
June 16th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Joe,
I just read you blog post (little late I know, but I was looking for something on .NET and came across it).
I want to explain my side of the "Evangelism" issue. I consider myself to be an Evangelical Christian. I believe as you said above that Jesus is the single conduit to enter Heaven and I do believe in a literal hell.
I believe in evangelizing but not in the face that some people try. True Evangelizing should be done by living a life that illustrates your beliefs. People can tell who a hypocrite is and who isn’t. However, we do try to Evangelize by talking with people and feel that this is necessary (remember, our faith says that unsaved souls will go to hell so that should explain why SOME people sometimes go over the top in Evangelizing). If you thought someone was going to die, you would do everything you could to help them. Now many people don’t understand this because they don’t have the same beliefs that we do.
I have never tried to force my faith on another. I do take offense at those who try to say we need to be tolerant or try to insult our intelligence because of our beliefs. I am a member of Mensa and have graduate degrees, so not all Evangelical Christians are ignorant country bumpkins (although those do exist). And dealing with tolerance. If someone doesn’t except my faith system, then that makes them just as intolerant as they believe my faith system to be. There are many issues that I don’t believe in, especially some current social agendas, but I don’t actively try to condemn or judge people. For example, with the current marriage issue, I personally think that government should exit the entire marriage arena and only grant civil unions to ANY 2 people that desire them. The title of Marriage could then be reserved for religious or non-govment organizations to bestow upon individuals based on their own rules and regulations. So the government would see everyone the same but different faiths could still seek to apply marriage based on their own beliefs.
Anyway, good blog (I found the info I was needing). I just wanted to express my thoughts that Evangelical Christians are not all bad and that in fact, many of them are caring and charitable individuals.
Thanks
July 27th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Evangelizing an evil belief is evil.
The belief that God sentences people to be tortured (or abandoned) for eternity is an evil belief.
If something doesn’t make sense, it probably isn’t true. To anyone with a conscience, eternal torture or abandonment does not make sense. If we, mere humans, can visualize a less horrific system than one involving eternal torture, then surely the creator can do so as well.
The Christ that the hellfire crowd believe in is the ultimate tyrant. He essentially says "Worship me, love me, or my Daddy will sentence you to suffer forever."
If he is worthy of love and worship, he doesn’t need to resort to torture.
So - why, you might ask, is this belief so terrible?
It is terrible because the hellfire crowd goes around terrorizing people with threats of eternal torture, which they sincerely believe. It is psychological terrorism. It is repugnant.
The idea that God could be such a monster only makes sense to someone with a very poorly developed conscience.
Dr. Proctopus,
The nemesis that Spiderman is too embarrassed to talk about.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:17 am
I have to say i agree with dr Proctopus. Any other thought process would negate the "work" that Jesus did.
I have however a comment to make about such discussions. Religions in every form provide hope for the future, be it real or imagined. One must be careful to challenge only those who choose to be challenged. You don’t want to damage the "hopes" of others who choose to believe a certain way(even if they are wrong in your eyes)
Forcing a belief structure, of any nature, is destructive. Nobody seems to remember that religion is always a personal choice.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I do not believe in Hell, and I agree with Dr. Proctopus. However, I object to his referring to any religion as evil. Everyone believes something mean and scary, it’s just human nature. And we won’t know what the afterlife really is until we get there. The point is that there is a commonality between good and evil behaviors and lifestyles that defies all attempts to put it in words. And inasmuch as Ashton doesn’t allow his mean belief to cause mean action, I still consider him a good person. As I see it, the evangelists Joe is arguing against are the ones that use mean beliefs as a justification for openly criticizing others, rather than aspiring to justify their judgments rationally. The key word here is "aspiring". Nobody can speak completely rationally. The hallmark of rational discourse is allowing others to point out irrationalities in one’s own speech and attempting to correct them. This doesn’t mean conceding on an issue, although that might be the way it turns out. However, rationally debating any issue always has a change, no matter how slight, on the viewpoint of all those participating. Insults and scare tactics, however, only cause other people to defensively stick to their own exact ideas.
For example, I like Jack VanImpe’s idea of being willing to tackle even the toughest questions. If I read one of his books, I’d probably disagree with everything he said. That doesn’t matter. If he’s actually sincere in tackling questions, rather than just putting them through a formula (and I neither confirm nor deny his claim to do so), then I would not consider him an evangelist, merely a philosopher with a different take on life, whom I fully admit to being afraid to discuss things with. But then, everyone chooses a selective audience.