 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Against Evangelism | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/18/2002 1:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | Pia:
You may be as persistent as me! *smiles*
--------
pia said: Claims to objectivity/neutrality/fact-value dichotomy etc. have been rather decisively debunked as manipulative and dishonest....Marx did it for economics, Freud did it for psychology, Nietszche did it for philosophy, deconstructionists do it all the time. Feminists convinced me that it’s true.
Empiress: I think we're talking about two different things here! These concepts don't apply to my statement. In the original context I was accused of being on this board because I wanted to "convince" people my ideas are right. It was an issue of motive and what I was attempting to do. This is quite different from claiming neutrality. Good grief! I'm certainly stating my opinions from a particular viewpoint. I also agreed with you that it is not possible to be "objective," I wasn't claiming "objectivity," and I'm not even sure what you mean by fact-value dichotomy.
For me to deny that my motive for being on this chat board is an attempt to convince people my beliefs are right does not equate to any claim of neutrality or objectivity. It also does not mean I'm being manipulative and dishonest.
------------
pia: Rather than striving for neutrality or objectivity, critical realists agree with the hermeneuts of suspicion that such a stance is impossible and strive instead for epistemic honesty and humility.
Empiress: But there is a difference between recognizing that one can never be entirely neutral and objective (ie honest and humble) and still striving to be. I value this pursuit even though I recognize it's not fully possible. I employ the hermeneutic of suspicion. But why would anyone scorn the pursuit of neutrality and objectivity? It seems a necessary evil that we can't achieve it, and yet we ought to still try. Again, I was never claiming this of myself, I feel my statement was misconstrued.
----------
pia: I enjoy such dialogue as well. Have you read any critiques of Hick’s "View from Nowhere"? I have found these critiques to be helpful and important (John Cobb Jr. does a nice job of this).
Empiress: No, I haven't read it, thanks for the recommendation!
-----------
Empiress: I think many people share their ideas in order to educate. I often state things I don't personally believe in simply to make people aware of other views and ideas. I like to make people think for themselves…
pia: A gadfly! What do you think I’m up to? Of course, some people find unsolicitated education to be patronizing and paternalistic.… Kant’s enlightenment dictum was "Think for yourself!" The psalmist invites us to "taste and see…" Reason is a tool that has limits and that is used by people with agendas, for better or for worse. Meaning is found in engagement and appropriation rather than dispassionate speculation alone.
Empiress: Again, I don't see that there's a disagreement here. I'm not advocating "dispassionate speculation alone." I have found that helping people to see all sides of an issue, rather than focusing solely on one side, to be much more beneficial to the learning process. Are you advocating we teach from only one perspective and keep hidden others just because we don't agree with them? Again, I'm baffled as to what you're getting at.
----------
Empiress: Even if all my words have persuasive power, my motives for engaging in discussion are not solely or primarily to convince people my opinions are right.
pia: I trust your motives are honorable and I probably share them. It’s just that a claim to neutrality is a denial of any motives at all and this seemed like a contradiction to me, since you obviously identify some motivations (such as the motivation to educate and be educated). I understand your frustration with hidden motives of some evangelists, but the solution is not to rid ourselves of motives. The solution is honesty and humility about what our motives are.
Empiress: Wow. I wasn't denying all motives, in fact, in the original post, I stated my motives for being on the board clearly: TO LEARN. I never suggested ridding ourselves of motives! You're applying irrelevant ideas.
And as far as honesty and humility about our motives...that is what I'm advocating most. That's why I can write a tirade on "secret evangelism" and rant on and on about loving people with the motive of love rather than the motive of conversion. I don't see your post as applicable in any way to my original statement. Or maybe we just misunderstood each other.
Peace,
~Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/18/2002 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/18/2002 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Empiress: Wow. I wasn't denying all motives, in fact, in the original post, I stated my motives for being on the board clearly: TO LEARN. I never suggested ridding ourselves of motives! You're applying irrelevant ideas.
And as far as honesty and humility about our motives...that is what I'm advocating most. That's why I can write a tirade on "secret evangelism" and rant on and on about loving people with the motive of love rather than the motive of conversion. I don't see your post as applicable in any way to my original statement. Or maybe we just misunderstood each other.
I believe that all Pia is trying to say here is that one cannot be completely neutral in one's arguments, whether one attempts to do so or not. I mean, c'mon, Empiress, your self-described "tirade" on "secret evangelism" is an effort to convince others that it is
WRONG. You're clearly not here just "TO LEARN" as you claim; you are also attempting to demonstrate that you are RIGHT about this and others are WRONG.
BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? NOTHING!
It just means that you really do BELIEVE what you are saying, and you hope that others will see it too. But let's be honest here, to advocate a position with any motive of persuasion while claiming overall "neutrality" is really a kind of "secret evangelism" of its own kind.
Something tells me that your struggle with admitting that you are not just trying "to learn" but actually trying to persuade as well, stems from the fact that you are uncomfortable with believing that there is real Truth out there, i.e., that you can actually be "right." Am I totally off base here?
Persuasively yours, 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/18/2002 3:36 AM (GMT -6) | | This is quite a silly thread! I feel like apologizing for it! And I feel dumb trying to defend my motives! This is making me super self-conscious. Eeeks! I hope I don't annoy the whole board here! Sorry!
Hey...you guys are going to make every not like me and I'm only a neophyte! ;-)
Okay:
I felt I was being misrepresented and taken way out of context by Pia. I was not claiming objectivity or neutrality. I don't think it's possible one can be either as I've said! I felt she was trying to apply principles to my particular statement that weren't relevant. I also found the implication she was making of me: That I'm being dishonest and manipulative, to be really unhelpful and not at all true to my character.
BJS : I believe that all Pia is trying to say here is that one cannot be completely neutral in one's arguments, whether one attempts to do so or not.
Empiress : Yes, and I say clearly I agree with her quite emphatically on multiple occasions.
BJS : I mean, c'mon, Empiress, your self-described "tirade" on "secret evangelism" is an effort to convince others that it is WRONG. You're clearly not here just "TO LEARN" as you claim; you are also attempting to demonstrate that you are RIGHT about this and others are WRONG.
Empiress : *smiles*
My main objective for joining the board, as the original post said, is to learn and to -test- my ideas out. I was hoping people would argue me vehemently on that particular post actually! I want to be shown where and if I'm wrong because, isn't that the best way to learn? I feel that this is the kind of person I am. I am very open to changing my opinions and I find the best way to do this is through dialogue and debate.
It is also impossible to speak from anything other than one's current opinion. It's impossible to comment in any meaningful way on anything without giving your perspective. I hope people will understand me...I desire to be understood, whether or not they agree. If by chance one of my ideas is correct, I hope people will adopt it, not because I think my ideas are "better" or that I feel the need to have everyone agree with me, but merely because I hope all people will be brought closer to truth. If I can be of help in that, wonderful. But I don't feel that's my main objective or motive.
In all my time of study I've constantly changed my mind. None of my "truths" have remained stagnant, it seems I'm always growing into new ones. I see all of us on a journey, moving along, seeking together. I don't think I've arrived at all. I feel I have far, far to go. But along the way, I need to share ideas and hear others and hopefully we all benefit from that. Not because I sought to change them to my way of thinking, but because we shared our perspectives and learned from one another. We are all in process.
BJS : BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? NOTHING!
Empiress : Well, I feel that to set out with this as one's primary intention will stifle all learning! If I'm just here to convince others I'm right, what am I EVER going to learn? It's not "wrong" to do that, it's just not something I find valuable or that I find particularly motivating. I will argue strongly my points because I don't know how else to communicate and learn corporately. It seems most effective to education.
BJS : It just means that you really do BELIEVE what you are saying, and you hope that others will see it too. But let's be honest here, to advocate a position with any motive of persuasion while claiming overall "neutrality" is really a kind of "secret evangelism" of its own kind.
Empiress : I prefer that people be upfront about their motives, particularly when it comes to something as important as evangelism. And again, sheesh, I'M NOT CLAIMING NEUTRALITY.
Just in case it's still been missed:
I AM NOT NEUTRAL. I AM NOT OBJECTIVE. I AM PARTIAL AND SUBJECTIVE.
BJS : Something tells me that your struggle with admitting that you are not just trying "to learn" but actually trying to persuade as well, stems from the fact that you are uncomfortable with believing that there is real Truth out there, i.e., that you can actually be "right." Am I totally off base here?
Empiress : No, I don't think you're totally off base. But it's not because I don't believe in any objective Truth, it's simply that I'm not convinced I personally have a corner on it.
Peace,
Empiress
Edited by - Empiress on 01/18/2002 08:42:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 1/18/2002 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
This is great! We are getting to know your style and now you wish to interact with this queer group of people. It's tough to get through this part of the process, but you seem to be holding up pretty well.
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/18/2002 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Lemme swoop in for a sec.
This is what I'm seeing, just being honest. Empiress IS being taken a bit out of context. She never made any claim to BE objective. From what I saw, she was advocating objectivity as being our IDEAL that we strive towards. This includes the epistemological humility that Pia advocates. Moreover, she said this:
"My main objective for joining the board, as the original post said, is to learn and to -test- my ideas out. I was hoping people would argue me vehemently on that particular post actually! I want to be shown where and if I'm wrong because, isn't that the best way to learn? I feel that this is the kind of person I am. I am very open to changing my opinions and I find the best way to do this is through dialogue and debate."
Now, this is nothing more than what I do or many other people here. See, there is a difference between initiating dialogue with convincing people of your idea of truth IN MIND FIRST...and initiating dialogue to find truth. Both may initially look the same because of the strength of conviction presented by the person. However, the latter is much more DIALECTIC than the former...and Empiress is doing the latter. In short, she is presenting her ideas here with "hot sauce" to provoke CONSIDERATION and even CONTRADICTION with those ideas. Not just to be provocative, but to go through the dialectical process: Her thesis, someone's antithesis, a new possible SYNTHESIS. Feel me?
So, Pia and BJS just possibly MAY want to ease up on the whole "objectivity" thing. I can feel what she's saying because I've been there...ON THIS BOARD.
Now, let's all hug and make up. Gin and juice is on me. (Oops. Forgot my context) Er...I mean a nice tall glass of apple juice...yeah... 
Loving all y'all,
PS: Miss E, I'm feelin' that black look. I dig that about goth. Black's my favorite color. But the purple tresses...well...
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/18/2002 4:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress said: Hey...you guys are going to make everyone not like me and I'm only a neophyte! ;-)
Semeia: I for one am delighted to have another strong-willed, persistent, opinionated, questioning, ever-so-slightly-contrary female on board!!! Why do you think Pia is having so much fun?! I hope you're not insulted; I consider all those traits to be quite complimentary, but then again I might be a little biased... 
Of course that's nothing at all like me. I'm very laid back and dispassionate and circumspect about everything... you'd almost never even know I had an opinion...          
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 01/18/2002 09:08:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/18/2002 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | That's one of the downsides of discussion boards. We have a hard time reading each other's feelings through the text on the screen. The best we can do to convey more than words is to slap one of those assorted faces in between the lines (, etc.).
Empiress, please forgive me if I came across a bit harshly. If we were having this conversation face-to-face, you would know that I'm not all anxious and upset about our conversation. I'm totally enjoying it, and I'm completely impressed with your background and theological knowledge. I'm looking forward to learning much from you.
Like I said before, we are probably like ships passing in the night on some of this. I think the reason I decided to stay with the "neutrality" thing is that I felt it was the basis for your stance on evangelism, which I differed with.
But I definitely didn't want to come across so aggressively--especially to such a groovy chick.
Brett "the Neophyte Hammer"
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/18/2002 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Everybody has a belief, everyone has a motive. We all do good deeds for some reason, whether God or some notion that our beliefs make the world better and we want to convert the world to them. The simple "practive random acts of kindness," is, in itself a way of living that the person who is advocating it believes people should do as opposed to something that they consider worst (such as, living your life for yourself alone). So whether one is upfront about your beliefs or not, no person does anything without some type of doctrinal system that they want people to follow. So the whole thing of being "against evangelism" to me, is almost ridiculous because it entails being against doing anything. As such it is almost a non-argument. You would have be against doing good deeds entirely, for everything has something motivating them. And, I would add, having people listen to a sermon is not evil. If a people is motived by the love of Christ and believes people need to hear the message that God loves them, getting them to hear such a message by offering them food is not evil, but loving. And besides, no one said they have to listen. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/18/2002 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress, so sorry to misrepresent your points and to make you feel like I was attacking your motives and character. I don’t know you, and even if I did know you well I would only offer such criticism very tentatively.
I’m very excited that you are part of this discussion and I’ve noticed a pattern in my posts: I tend to be most critical of those who I find most challenging and interesting and who I probably agree with most. I realize my posts to you so far don’t read very well as compliments , but my intention was simply to engage a new conversation partner that I’m excited about.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously…” § Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/18/2002 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | [Disclaimer: My intention in this post is to express my view on this issue based on my own experience. My conclusions are offered to everyone in general, but not directed at anyone in particular.]
It’s easy to find lots of examples to vindicate judgment of harmful evangelistic efforts. I can point to hundreds from the conservative evangelical context I was raised in. The examples in history are countless. There are plenty of ignorant, manipulative, small-minded evangelists to blame for hardening so many hearts against the gospel and maybe even causing people to go to hell who otherwise would’ve gone to heaven (if there really are such places).
For a long time this is how I thought of my own small town church family. I was ashamed of them and I criticized them harshly in order to feel better about myself by distancing myself from them—"See, at least I’m not like them!" But now when I want to feel good about myself, instead of looking at other people, I look to God and say, "Have mercy on me, a sinner!"
Some of us may be less flawed than others, but we’re all flawed and God works through all of us in spite of ourselves. If the spread of the gospel depends on the packaging, how is it different than any other product that we market to consumers? If the spread of the gospel depends on the packaging, then God is fool for entrusting it to sinners—for putting this treasure in jars of clay that crack and crumble. It’s bound to get stolen or to leak out or spill.… At least, I hope so.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…you should be true, that is, you yourself should be what you proclaim, or at least strive to be that, or at least be honest enough to confess about yourself that you are not that…” § Søren Kierkegaard
Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/18/2002 4:58:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/18/2002 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | *takes a deep breath*
And says:
might-be-don, your post is like a breath of grace. Thank you for the encouragement.
Mephi2K, yeah, what you said. You state things better than I ever will! And what's wrong with purple tresses?
Semeia, aww... I take that as a compliment.
BJS, thank you...and I do enjoy being challenged, so keep it comin!
Writerdad, I don't think you understood my posts so rather than re-hashing them, can I suggest you re-read them? Briefly, I don't think we're in disagreement for the first half of your post, I'm not against doing good deeds for the right reasons, and it IS evil to force people to listen to a sermon as one's wage for being fed, but as I said, there's nothing wrong with having people listen to a sermon if it is by choice. We agree on that.
Pia, No offense taken, thanks for the clarification, and I'm happy to engage you in discussion in the future.
*GROUP HUG*
~Empiress
Edited by - Empiress on 01/18/2002 3:00:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 1/18/2002 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
No personal offense taken in your characterization of servant evangelism. I do think you've re-shaped it in your caricature. Admittedly I cited some of the more trivial examples of potential acts of kindness, which coupled with an explanation that this a demonstration of God's love, makes for quite a mismatch, as you point out. My bad! Some sort of proportionality is required in the degree to which we openly describe our actions as modeling Christ's. In the appropriate context and attitude I don't see anything wrong with explaining to folks that we're just trying to follow his example - he washed feet, so we wash windshields (or serve meals at the homeless shelter, etc.).
Chosen properly, such acts of service won't be seen as condescending; they are generally appreciated. Even if the service is a small one, people appreciate that we are investing our time in brightening their day. And just maybe, people will see Christ in a new light, or open up concerning their own needs.
I agree that ulterior motives, leading to what you call "secret evangelism" are destructive. It is understandable that people will suspect we are "selling" something. A core value is that no strings are attached to the service. It defeats the purpose if donations are accepted or gospel tracts are handed out. We need to be satisfied to just perform the service, and to be available to minister if needs are expressed. Examining our motives is important no matter how we attempt to serve people.
Empiress: I prefer that people be upfront about their motives, particularly when it comes to something as important as evangelism.
Mag: Amen!
Empiress: Yes, let's do kind things, small things for one another, but let's NOT advocate this as the WAY to evangelize. The very name "secret evangelism" stinks of deception and manipulation.
Mag: I don't view servant evangelism as THE way to do evangelism (I'm more invested in other methods), nor does Sjogren. It is just one method to connect with and show acceptance of people. I get the impression that you thought I had used the term "secret evangelism." Is that what lit your fuse?
I hope this clarifies. We're probably not as far apart as you thought. The deeper issues that have been raised about evangelism in general are much more important than this or any methodology.
Magneton
If the spread of the gospel depends on the packaging, then God is a fool for entrusting it to sinners. Pia
Edited by - magneton on 01/18/2002 3:28:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/18/2002 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Mag,
Oh I did read "servant evangelism" as "secret evangelism" in your post because it seemed to be what it was! *giggles* Wow! Thanks for pointing that out.
I do think this type of thing can be done in the right way as long as everyone is clear about what is going on theologically. From the brief description you gave (and since I haven't read the book I don't know) it seemed based on some of the terrible theology I've seen all too often in ministry and evangelism, and that did light my fire!
The theology I "saw" that I got upset about:
-we never have to genuinely sacrifice anything (this is like the opposite of the NT teachings)
-it is valid to disguise and hide our motives when we serve
-doing trivial acts is an accurate representation of God's love
-trivial "service" can or should be done IN PLACE of desperately needed service (ie, if a group has to choose between feeding starving kids and handing out lightbulbs, they choose handing out lightbulbs!?)
So I think we do agree more on this than it seemed initially. I'm ALL for small acts of kindness. I'm only against people thinking that's ALL they need to do! I see Christians take the easy road all the time and then feel complacent and good about themselves for it. This method seemed to condone that. I wanted to shake people up and get us ALL thinking about the true nature of our faith and evangelism! I personally am not sure, so my ears are open. In the past I've only seen evangelism that amounted to manipulation.
Thank you for responding. I like what "we've" come up with here in considering multiple sides to this issue, and I think there's a lot more to be fleshed out.
Peace to you,
Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 1/18/2002 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
Have you read Kierkegaard's Practice in Christianity?
The standard he sets there is of inviting people into our lives rather than just going out to help them. Kind of inconvenient, though!
On the same page,
Magneton
"Anything will give up its secrets if you love it enough. Not only have I found that when I talk to the little flower or to the little peanut they will give up their secrets, but I have found that when I silently commune with people they give up their secrets also - if you love them enough." George W. Carver
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/18/2002 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress: nobody (as far as I know) is FORCING a person to listen to a sermon. They don't have to listen. But I believe there are places where you can get food WITHOUT listening to a sermon (this is america, after all). But if I have food and you don't and you are starving and I say I will give you food but after you eat you must work for the food, is that evil? Because that is basically what you are saying. You are basically saying that by attaching any provisions to the giving of food makes it evil. Therefore, by that logic, making someone work for what others had to work for, simply because they are starving is evil. I find that logic extremely flawed. Besides, at the most making a person listen to a sermon is wrong, not evil. Would you consider it evil as murder, or perhaps child abuse? I tend to reserve the term evil for evil things. Finally, you say making people listen to a sermon is using them. How do you know? Saying that is making a judgment on the motives of a person. How do you know why a person would want another person to do anything? Such, some do it to control others. But, as I said before, many do it out of love. I know many people who work in giving food away and they believe that the sermon is food for the soul and they are people who also give medical attention, counseling, and offer other services, all for, basically a sermon. Is this using the person? Making a person listen to a sermon may not always be the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't evil. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/19/2002 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I would really like to know what Tom thinks of this subject. pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…you should be true, that is, you yourself should be what you proclaim, or at least strive to be that, or at least be honest enough to confess about yourself that you are not that…” § Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | On another thread, I asked the question, "Who damns the damned?" God or evangelists? On this thread, I wonder how we would answer this question: "Who gives birth to the born again?" God or evangelists? In blaming lousy evangelists for damning souls, or in giving evangelists credit for saving souls we turn evangelism into a marketing endeavor (talk about being unduly influenced by Western categories!) in which the success of this (supposedly) infinitely valuable product depends on the packaging.
Lutherans consider proclamation to be a sacrament. The short definition of a sacrament is "means of grace." Grace is something that God does. Lutherans simply proclaim to people that their sins have been forgiven on the cross, and whether or not this forgiveness is received and appropriated is between the individual and God. An encounter with the Word is what is decisive—not an encounter with an evangelist with a particularly sensitive and well-articulated series of words, as if salvation were just another product in the marketplace for the masses to consume—if they feel like it.
I think Doc’s testimony is an illustration of the sacramental, vs. slick marketing version (which includes both fundamentalist and more saavy, sophisticated moderate evangelical) of evangelism.
pia
Note: I am not Lutheran, but I am learning theology at a Lutheran school and I often "try on" Lutheran approaches to faith.
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Not God’s distance but God’s bridging of the distance—this is God’s transcendence…” § Douglas John Hall | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/22/2002 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Pia said:
quote:
An encounter with the Word is what is decisive—not an encounter with an evangelist with a particularly sensitive and well-articulated series of words, as if salvation were just another product in the marketplace for the masses to consume—if they feel like it.
Pia, I agree with this...this is an excellent point. It seems most evangelistic techniques differ little from marketing ploys...and then the church wonders why people don't take Christianity seriously?
I'm a big advocate of the Sacraments...an invitation to enter into grace and to feel the touch of God. The Sacraments, like all truly incarnational ministry and service, give life to the love of God in a tangible way, without coersion and manipulation.
Thank you for pointing this aspect out in this thread.
One question for you: do you think then, that evangelists, when they use poor techniques that cause people to feel manipulated/judged/used should be excused? Do you think the blame should fall entrirely upon the person that identifies the hypocrisy/manipulation they see and rejects it, or does the evangelist carry any blame?
~Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 1/23/2002 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Ex-communicated; In your anti-evangelism, are you not evangelizing??
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/23/2002 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress: One question for you: do you think then, that evangelists, when they use poor techniques that cause people to feel manipulated/judged/used should be excused?
pia: Excused, no. Forgiven, yes.
Empiress: Do you think the blame should fall entrirely upon the person that identifies the hypocrisy/manipulation they see and rejects it…
pia: I think people need to take responsibility for their souls. Rejecting manipulative hypocrites is a healthy thing. But let’s not confuse manipulative hypocrites (sinners) with Christ (forgiver of sins).
Empiress: …or does the evangelist carry any blame?
pia: Those who turn people away from Jesus’ invitation bear weighty (e.g. millstone around the neck) responsibility. It will surely crush them unless they resort to grace and seek forgiveness, just like any other sinner.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Not God’s distance but God’s bridging of the distance—this is God’s transcendence…” § Douglas John Hall
Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/23/2002 09:49:14 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/23/2002 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I think evangelism has done more harm to Christianity than the actual beliefs of Christianity, people feel used like objects, and resent the very idea of "good" in the name of conversion.
As Empiress has pointed out (she has worked with the homeless for many years), even the homeless feel the sting of worthlessness when they know that a sermon follows generosity. It stings to the heart because it is not an action that takes into accounts a person's emotions or sense of worth.
Experiencing love in life is surely a much better way to find god? To share your beliefs over time with someone who already knows you are a friend (a true friend who simply likes your company) is a massively more understanding and compassionate method of sharing your beliefs.
Evangelism (as much as proselytisation) turns people away, it makes them feel used, not only by the perpetrator, but by Christianity as a whole. It associates Christianity with Politicians, Sales, Adverts, and not with truth, Humanity or goodness.
It seems that if you wish to do good, you should do it, and show by example, what is good, but to then evangelize undoes the worth of that, and turns it into blackmail, making a person feel guilt, anger and shame for ever accepting the good deed in the first place. It associates that good deed with inhumane abuse.
It seems that doing good with an aim to evangelize (and not simply sharing your beliefs with no expectation of a "return"), creates more evil than it cures.
The most frequent snarled comment about Christians that I hear, is, "as long as they don't shove their beliefs down my throat, I don't mind that they're a Christian".
Evangelism creates instant feelings of being used. The more subtle and secret it is, the more friendly or the higher "worth" of the good done in it's name, the worse the downfall after you reveal what you really want.
Evangelism is the most hated aspect of organized religion, causing the most amount of fear, resentment and "hardened hearts".
I can imagine, however, with enough peer pressure, support from the Church and belief, that this evil can be overlooked, ignored, or plain inversed. Excuses include such rhetoric as "if you loved someone, and found something great... wouldn't you want to share it with them?"
Good intent and motive are essential in a friend, and once you've abused that, they'll not like you or your message.
I believe the best way is (how do you say it?)... testimony? But not in the style of evangelism, or "hidden" motives. Hidden motives are the worse aspect of "friendship", undermining it completely.
*smiles*
What a rant! I haven't debated this type of thing for many years, but it's slowly coming back to me!
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/23/2002 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Vexen, I am very interested in your perspective. You have said a couple times that bad evangelists harden peoples’ hearts toward Christianity. I believe that people can choose to harden their own hearts, but I wonder if we are giving bad evangelists too much credit if we say they have the power to harden hearts other than their own? (Note: When I say "I wonder," I mean that this is something I haven’t made my mind up on yet myself.)
I think this is an interesting question for open theists, because we believe that God has given people irrevocable freedom for the sake of love—but it also means we can abuse our freedom even to the point of destroying other lives. How far does this freedom go? Are we free to destroy other souls? If we are, then in what sense are we self-determined?
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Not God’s distance but God’s bridging of the distance—this is God’s transcendence…” § Douglas John Hall | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 1/24/2002 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Vexen, it occurred to me that I used the word “soul” in my question to you above. We probably have different ideas about souls and I’m not even sure myself what I mean by “soul.” So let’s stick with your metaphor of “heart” instead. pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“You have not yet fully weighed the gravity of sin” § Anselm | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/24/2002 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I am not saying that "hardening of hearts" towards Christianity is the same as towards god, or love, or life. Specifically, it is towards Christianity.
Hopefully, a God would respect that this is case, and show people the truth, when they die. Likewise for atheists, etc, hopefully God will show them the ultimate truth, so that they will know that God is good, and therefore accept it.
It seems that good people will accept God, and evil ones reject him, but also that evangelists cause good people to reject the Church. If you hold that Christian beliefs _in particular_ are the only good ones (that merely worshipping God is not enough), then evangelism is probably quite a thorn in the side.
If not, if personal belief in God is enough, then evangelism itself is misdirected. Perhaps!
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
| 75 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|