Some thoughts for evangelists, inspired by TruthSeeker
What is generally not considered are the vagaries of Christianity so useful to the evangelist at other times. Are you not creating cruelty, for instance, in persecuting homosexuality or paganism? Does one not cause cruelty if they deny a person employment and increase their suffering? In Sufism, the only way to see Khidr, the Green One, the beneficent and giving spirt of God, one must first increase one's necessity. We may not be discussing Sufism, but if Christ was around in the 1980s in the US, he never got out of The Castro, because that's probably where he was needed the most. To convert the gays? No, to give them compassion and comfort in one of the darkest hours of humanity when, abandoned by the political establishment, vilified by the public, homosexuals were left to die in a plague. Or perhaps worldwide? Christ would still be in Africa. Why? Because that is where the necessity is the greatest.
Take it from the overlord-eye perspective: In a place like the US, does it befit the Christian vision to undermine the very devices that allow it to exist in these forms in order to "convert" the target of one's prejudice?
I think that's largely what the letter speaks to. If people are good enough people, one should leave them to their devices, for God will either speak to them or not. They will answer God on the Day of Judgment, and in the meantime all one gains in persecution through conversion is hostility. God sees the seeds of division cast about by His flock, and if the infidels do not convert, it is as God should Will it.
A side digression, just to see if people can follow it:
• In the wake of the Nigerian "Miss World riots", FOX News hosted two guests, one from a Washington, DC-area Muslim academy, and another a bishop of the Church of God in Christ, from Africa. Why, oh, why did the good bishop turn the event into a spin opportunity? Why did he choose to evangelize to Americans? Why, when asked the Christian opinion of the pageant and the editorial alleged to start the violence did he choose to whine about "They (the Muslims) don't own the country. They're only fifty per cent!"
It's not dignified.
Point being: Watching this man of God in action does not inspire anyone to come to God. His behavior undermines the Christian message he alleges, and leaves him seeming dishonest. Would it not be better to let his integrity and forthrightness stand as the representative of his faith? Or must it be petty politics?
Christian evangelism is oft-regarded as nasty and presumptuous because of the appearance of the assumption of supremacy. Wherever Christians go, their "message of hope" is betrayed by a simple notion: You are not good enough. Your life is wrong. You are inherently bad and in need of salvation.
So what people get to know about Christianity from the evangelism is that it is supremacist. What people hear of it is divisive and prohibitionist. Christian evangelists generally demand the sacrifice of life customs without giving a good reason. "Because you're a horrible person who needs redemption," just doesn't cut it, especially in the modern era where the targets are generally smarter than the evangelists.
There was a time when such psychological balbutive was both necessary and effective, but as Christianity became more and more prevalent, it disrupted the intellectual curve; left out in the rain when Christianity became the majority were the extremes of the curve: both the smart and the not-smart. Perhaps the emotional blackmail works on the destitute, but they have nothing left to lose. For many people, myself included, among the things I would have to give up in order to be Christian is my compassion.
How the situation came to be that way is kind of ridiculous, but also entirely the fault of the Christians I've known and experienced throughout my life. I consider evangelism an exercise in idiocy, supremacy, or cowardice, generally, and depending on the form. There is very little substantive evangelism going on today because the nature of Biblical faith is such that very little new thought has come about over the last two millennia. In other words, the infidels have heard it all before, and the spiel is becoming less and less effective.
Perhaps the cajoling, the threatening, and the intrusive evangelism works on the intellectually destitute. Christianity has much to offer someone who has nothing to give to the world. But for those who do, Christianity often interferes with their ability to give it.
Those who ask? Evangelize away. But those who don't ... well, the Witches don't go casting spells on Christians without permission; I think they'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.
Besides, given the brand of condemning "evangelism" people like Falwell, Jack Chick, Lon Mabon, Carman, and others ....
When I fought with Christians at this site about such issues, I used to write, Clean out your own house first.
When an evangelist creates resentment by his or her behavior, how does that serve God? When the target retreats further from Christ's invitation, how does that serve God?
Take a look at some of the awful, aggressive evangelism going on: is this really God's way? Christians at Sciforums and in the American culture as well have charged that atheism leads to moral decay. What of Christianity? After all, when someone like Carman decides that his sense of ridicule is conveniently the "chosen" method of evangelism, when Mabon decides that his personal bigotries are exactly what God wants him to attack, when Falwell blames the voiceless for what they said--how does any of it really go to serve God? And what are the people watching supposed to think?
When someone sees a good dancer, it makes them want to dance. When someone hears a good guitarist, it makes them want to play. When someone strong and beautiful faith, it draws them closer to faith.
It just bugs people when condemning evangelists talk about the necessity of "forgiving". Especially when forgiveness is so absent in the Christian representation.
In the end, it is not that the faithful has ministered to the infidel. It is not that the faithful has seen the sick in prison and brought them comfort and health. In the end, it is that the faithful bring the sickness, and call it health. It is that the faithful bring the shackles, and call them freedom.
The evangelists need to put their money where their mouth is. They can help bring about a godly world or simply go off and wait for God. The aggressive evangelism, though, needs to go.
Matthew 25--does one do unto another, or fail to do? But what is that doing?
What do you do to or for the least of His brethren?
Two parts from Matthew 5, included today especially for evangelists:
Are the evangelists truly willing to answer God on these grounds?
Jesus weeps.
thanx,
Tiassa
Actually, the tragedy of Matthew 25 is that one evangelizes in order to escape their own hell. During the Inquisition, the burning and torture wasn't really "punishment". It was an effort to get the sinner to confess to their own sins so that God might forgive them. Failure to right the wrong, of course, is covered in Matthew 25:Most of us just do that because we don't want to see anyone in hell... we want salvation to everyone, so we start to speak...
• Matthew 25.34-46, RSVThen the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
What is generally not considered are the vagaries of Christianity so useful to the evangelist at other times. Are you not creating cruelty, for instance, in persecuting homosexuality or paganism? Does one not cause cruelty if they deny a person employment and increase their suffering? In Sufism, the only way to see Khidr, the Green One, the beneficent and giving spirt of God, one must first increase one's necessity. We may not be discussing Sufism, but if Christ was around in the 1980s in the US, he never got out of The Castro, because that's probably where he was needed the most. To convert the gays? No, to give them compassion and comfort in one of the darkest hours of humanity when, abandoned by the political establishment, vilified by the public, homosexuals were left to die in a plague. Or perhaps worldwide? Christ would still be in Africa. Why? Because that is where the necessity is the greatest.
Take it from the overlord-eye perspective: In a place like the US, does it befit the Christian vision to undermine the very devices that allow it to exist in these forms in order to "convert" the target of one's prejudice?
I think that's largely what the letter speaks to. If people are good enough people, one should leave them to their devices, for God will either speak to them or not. They will answer God on the Day of Judgment, and in the meantime all one gains in persecution through conversion is hostility. God sees the seeds of division cast about by His flock, and if the infidels do not convert, it is as God should Will it.
A side digression, just to see if people can follow it:
• In the wake of the Nigerian "Miss World riots", FOX News hosted two guests, one from a Washington, DC-area Muslim academy, and another a bishop of the Church of God in Christ, from Africa. Why, oh, why did the good bishop turn the event into a spin opportunity? Why did he choose to evangelize to Americans? Why, when asked the Christian opinion of the pageant and the editorial alleged to start the violence did he choose to whine about "They (the Muslims) don't own the country. They're only fifty per cent!"
It's not dignified.
Point being: Watching this man of God in action does not inspire anyone to come to God. His behavior undermines the Christian message he alleges, and leaves him seeming dishonest. Would it not be better to let his integrity and forthrightness stand as the representative of his faith? Or must it be petty politics?
Christian evangelism is oft-regarded as nasty and presumptuous because of the appearance of the assumption of supremacy. Wherever Christians go, their "message of hope" is betrayed by a simple notion: You are not good enough. Your life is wrong. You are inherently bad and in need of salvation.
So what people get to know about Christianity from the evangelism is that it is supremacist. What people hear of it is divisive and prohibitionist. Christian evangelists generally demand the sacrifice of life customs without giving a good reason. "Because you're a horrible person who needs redemption," just doesn't cut it, especially in the modern era where the targets are generally smarter than the evangelists.
There was a time when such psychological balbutive was both necessary and effective, but as Christianity became more and more prevalent, it disrupted the intellectual curve; left out in the rain when Christianity became the majority were the extremes of the curve: both the smart and the not-smart. Perhaps the emotional blackmail works on the destitute, but they have nothing left to lose. For many people, myself included, among the things I would have to give up in order to be Christian is my compassion.
How the situation came to be that way is kind of ridiculous, but also entirely the fault of the Christians I've known and experienced throughout my life. I consider evangelism an exercise in idiocy, supremacy, or cowardice, generally, and depending on the form. There is very little substantive evangelism going on today because the nature of Biblical faith is such that very little new thought has come about over the last two millennia. In other words, the infidels have heard it all before, and the spiel is becoming less and less effective.
Perhaps the cajoling, the threatening, and the intrusive evangelism works on the intellectually destitute. Christianity has much to offer someone who has nothing to give to the world. But for those who do, Christianity often interferes with their ability to give it.
Those who ask? Evangelize away. But those who don't ... well, the Witches don't go casting spells on Christians without permission; I think they'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.
Besides, given the brand of condemning "evangelism" people like Falwell, Jack Chick, Lon Mabon, Carman, and others ....
When I fought with Christians at this site about such issues, I used to write, Clean out your own house first.
When an evangelist creates resentment by his or her behavior, how does that serve God? When the target retreats further from Christ's invitation, how does that serve God?
Take a look at some of the awful, aggressive evangelism going on: is this really God's way? Christians at Sciforums and in the American culture as well have charged that atheism leads to moral decay. What of Christianity? After all, when someone like Carman decides that his sense of ridicule is conveniently the "chosen" method of evangelism, when Mabon decides that his personal bigotries are exactly what God wants him to attack, when Falwell blames the voiceless for what they said--how does any of it really go to serve God? And what are the people watching supposed to think?
When someone sees a good dancer, it makes them want to dance. When someone hears a good guitarist, it makes them want to play. When someone strong and beautiful faith, it draws them closer to faith.
It just bugs people when condemning evangelists talk about the necessity of "forgiving". Especially when forgiveness is so absent in the Christian representation.
In the end, it is not that the faithful has ministered to the infidel. It is not that the faithful has seen the sick in prison and brought them comfort and health. In the end, it is that the faithful bring the sickness, and call it health. It is that the faithful bring the shackles, and call them freedom.
The evangelists need to put their money where their mouth is. They can help bring about a godly world or simply go off and wait for God. The aggressive evangelism, though, needs to go.
Matthew 25--does one do unto another, or fail to do? But what is that doing?
What do you do to or for the least of His brethren?
Two parts from Matthew 5, included today especially for evangelists:
• All RSV citations from University of Michigan Humanities Text Initiative"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply `Yes' or `No'; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5.33-37, RSV)
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5.43-48, RSV)
Are the evangelists truly willing to answer God on these grounds?
Jesus weeps.
thanx,
Tiassa