Are you offended by evangelism?

Bible bashers make me sick. Christian, Muslim, whatever. All brainwashed by backward superstition.

Is the guy with the megaphone saying, "Don't evangelise me."?

As much as I disagree with the fundamentals of most religions and am certainly offended by the hardliners of any religion, one of the last commandmants given to the early christians (according to certain texts anyway) is to spread the word, so I'd be dubious of any christian who doesn't evangelise. It's supposed to be a major part of their religion.

So, I'm not offended by evangelism, it gives me a chance to debate with them, to test the sincerity of their beliefs, and whilst they might be trying to convert me, I'll certainly do my best to un-convert them.

Evangelism is a form of abuse - imposing one's beliefs on another and telling them this is what they must believe/accept etc and usually involves some sort of threat of punishment/damnation if one does not follow their way. I can feel anger that people are peddling erroneous ideas about God - that do not come from love but from fear and only serve to perpetuate the separation from love - and for me that is evil. I understand they think they are doing the will of God and think they are trying to 'save' people - but for me neither of those things are fulfilled by evangelism as it stands today. (My anger of course just reflects my own stuff re evangelism and shows me I have some work to do there!)
There is a difference between presenting and preaching - people can be presented with wisdom teachings etc and left to make up their own minds/hearts about whether to live according to it or not whereas preaching is saying you have to do it this way etc
Live and let live and of course that includes evangelicals.

Offensive is perhaps not the first word I would think of. I'd say irritating or seriously annoying.

Though it can be interesting too. Like Natman I do like to turn things around when the opportunity arises. Some months ago I had a Jehovas Witness at the door. I had a polite conversation with her for about 20-25 minutes. She had a little girl with her, I presume her daughter. I started pointing out what a loads of errors are in the bible, what disgusting 'morality' it promotes etc. How science can give us almost infinitely better answers. And how calling an old book holy tends to turn that book into an impediment for further learning and thinking, as learning and thinking would make people realise what nonsense that book is. She tried to counter the science bit by pointing to how a Hebrew word used to describe the earth n the bible could be taken to mean 'sphere'. So I brought up other parts of the bible that clearly suggest the earth is flat, like it having 4 corners, etc. And asked if she knew those bits of the bible. She said she obviously did. So I went on to ask her if she didn't feel bad being a bit dishonest in the service of christianity, pretending that the errors she knows are there don't exist. At that point, as it became very clear how bad things were going for her, she sent away the little girl to do something by herself for a while.

So she new she was being dishonest for jesus, but that didn't hold her back from going door to door of course. Or from indoctrinating her daughter, shielding her from anything that would open her eyes. That is perhaps an offensive side to it.

Hi Will,

On "Evangelism as Religious Abuse", I think it's undoubtedly the case that such is a fair charicature of what lots of "Evangelists" do. But I wonder whether this isn't because they're misinterpreting their task.

From what encounters I've had in cafes and at home with evangelists, they approach their role as a kind of sales-person. They're trying to get you to buy in to their assertions, to sell you a personal solution to your problems and existential anxieties.

That implies the following: whatever it is they're trying to share is something that is passed from person to person, and _not_, fundamentally, about something that can only be given by God. What they're sharing is "their God", and I can't help but think that doing so is a great disservice to whatever God actually underlies their assertions.

If they're being true to their Word, Christians ought replace the current notion of evangelism with the notion of Invitation. Approaching us as customers of your godly enterprise can only ever sell us "your God", but letting us know where your group is meeting, what kinds of questions you're all interested in, what books you're all reading and why you think we might enjoy coming along is shorter, less impositional, requires less unquestioning loyalty and, I suspect, would be a lot more successful in introducing new voices to the Christian Discussion.

Of course, the problem with that is the total rethink of the role of Church, moving from Congregation as an enclosed membership to a boundaryless part of the broader community. I don't see the institutional Church rushing to embrace this idea, especially not in Northern Ireland (where the fundamentally enchurched nature of communities sees a shift in the status quo largely unforthcoming), but it's not for nothing that post-Christian groups and the like are starting to gain momentum, doing amongst themselves what, I think, they see as lacking in the institutions they're moving away from.

ps to answer the question: evangelism is unhealthy - esp if it brings up anger/frustration/emotional responses etc!! Hence best avoided. Also taking religious advice from an evangelical is to be avoided as it will be false and not based on Truth about God in my view - as if it was based on Truth they would not be evangelising!! So again - best avoided.

In life, you will regrettably from time to time offend someone. This you can almost guarantee. For some the actual idea of having a religious belief in the first place is a ridiculous one let alone promoting or pushing it into the public domain. We have all heard the phrase I do not mind him having a religion but pushing it down my throat is just unacceptable. I give the human being more credence however, I think if we wish to be evangelised we can quite easily be, if we choose not to be we can also reject the offer, walk away, turn off or whatever. I do think there are many suggestions in several religious belief texts and understanding which suggest at least for their followers to go out, preach the good news, convert, and talk about the scenarios. I suppose also the possible damnation fire which might decent if you do not repent is part of this for some. All of these are fine if they are seen as an honest attempt by individuals to promote their own belief or church. They are just views. That’s how religion grew in the first place. I do not see how we should easily feel abused by it. Sadly we have entered an age where religion and the word abuse have all too often ended up in the same sentence. All Christian religions for example have darker histories of many more extreme methods incorporated to press their views but that’s another debate. In any case I don’t mind giving everyone a fair hearing. Live and let live.

Response to "Evangelism is a form of abuse - imposing one's beliefs on another..."

On the contrary, evangelism is a form of persuasion. It's about trying to convince another person to believe what you do. Nothing wrong with that whatever.

kierantherock: it is abusive to be imposing on another -whether that is evangelising religion or imposing one's views on another topic. There is a difference between sharing one's views in an unimposing way with people who are interested or who have opted to listen and forcing one's views on people who are not interested. It comes down to the energy it is said with - one leaves you alone to make up your own mind and the other endeavours to force you to accept what they are saying.

Perhaps the best form of 'evangelising' if you want to use that word is by someone setting an example by how they live their life - 'by their fruits ye shall know them' . It's not the words that come out of their mouth but their whole life and lifestyle, how they treat others etc. That I can accept as a true form of evangelising - there is no imposing, just someone being the example of change they wish to see rather than telling others this is what they have to do, people are free to follow their example or not, to ask them what they are doing etc if they so choose.

John Wright: why should someone believe what you do? (and don't tell me to avoid hell /damnation or all those things that don't exist and have nothing to do with God) All people have the wisdom within them and are free to make their own choices and lead their own lives - live and let live. It is how it is said, not just what is said that makes it abusive.

How come the discussion on evangelism on today's programme didn't include an evangelical?

Pastor Philip,
Maybe they are too offensive.

John Wright,

"on the contrary, evangelism is a form of persuasion. It's about trying to convince another person to believe what you do. Nothing wrong with that whatever."

So you believe that it is fine for someone to try to persuade me that I am an abomination or disordered, cause me psychological harm and maybe even kill myself because I do not meet the standards they evangelise.

You might see this as an over the top response, but if you actually look at the suicide rates in N.Ireland and the causal factors you might think differently. Evangelists have a lot of damage to answer for.

It is not the evangelism which is the problem, it is what they evangelise which is offensive or damaging.

Dave, on your "It is not the evangelism which is the problem, it is what they evangelise which is offensive or damaging."

The ostracising element of much of evangelists' doctrines is part-and-parcel of the methodology of evangelism itself. In fact, it is implicit within the very notion of "conversion". Whether this is about anti-secularisation, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion or whatever else, the point is that if you did not believe in an "us and them" analysis of the world, you wouldn't be out insisting on the expansion and promotion of the "us" side of that division.

_All_ evangelism, characterised as it has been so far, amounts to treating others as excluded, even if in the attempt to overcome that exclusion. That the particular others you're thinking of are subject to the form of evangelism you're familiar with does not imply that the particulars of those forms are what's to blame. The issue is with the core presumption - that the wall between right and wrong is sacred, and that the speaker is on one side of it. What that wall is built of, and where it is, is irrelevant.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As Christians part of our duty is proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. This morning in our church our minister read from John Chapter 1 where Lord called his 1st disiples. The early disciples and apostles boldly evangelised and we as Christians are called to do the same. If I lived in a Muslim country I would't have the same amount of religion freeedom as I do have living in Northern Ireland.

I believe that in this country there a lot of Christians who don't want to offend non Christians and keep silent about their faith. The fact is that once a person receives Jesus Christ as their Saviour it's their duty to proclaim the gospel. We are not all called to be preachers, but we can proclaim by trying to live our lives in a such a way where our Christian faith comes through. Some people are good at preaching a sermon, but it's easy to talk the talk, Christians must walk the walk by their actions in everyday life.

Eunice:

"why should someone believe what you do? ... It is how it is said, not just what is said that makes it abusive."

You're throwing around the word 'abuse' a little too lightly, if you ask me. Nobody is being forced to believe what I do. But I'm going to use all my persuasive means to try to get them to. Perhaps if you think some of the means used by evangelists are "abusive" you can give me a few examples of such means. But if I were a car salesman I might say, "You need this car, it'll feel so good to drive around in it, it'll even change your life!" It's up to you to decide whether I'm right, or whether I'm just trying everything to get you to buy the car.

-----------

Dave:

"So you believe that it is fine for someone to try to persuade me that I am an abomination or disordered, cause me psychological harm and maybe even kill myself because I do not meet the standards they evangelise."

I assume you're talking about what an evangelist of a certain sort might say about homosexuality. Well, you've presented a terribly extreme example, and in such cases I think you may have a hard time making the case that the evangelist is solely to blame. What happened was that the gay person bought the story that they are an abomination. The evangelist was merely telling people what they believe is true. But, out of all the competing information about homosexuality, the vast majority of which - and all credible sources which - is supportive and factual, our friend decided to listen to the evangelist, and believe him, and act upon his words in such an extreme way. The evangelist merely offered repentance; our friend decided to take his life. How can we pin that on the evangelist? Our friend may just as easily have watched a movie about how difficult life can be for a gay teen and done the same thing.

Except in rare cases, the general principle ought to be that deciding who to listen to and why, separating fact from fiction and figuring out who is telling the truth falls upon each of us individually.

All kinds of information exists. I guy at a bar might tell me that my irritable bowel syndrome is likely to come back and kill me slowly, like what happened to his grandmother, and I might buy it, and I might fail to check the truth value of the claim, and then kill myself in the belief that I'm facing a horrible end anyway. Would that be the fault of our unwitting peddler of doom? Of course not... I failed to reality-check my life.

All kinds of worldview are available to buy into. If I let it all offend me, I'd spend my life being offended. No, it's called diversity, and at the rights level it's called free speech. Choose wisely who you let influence you, stop being offended at everyone, understand that others think differently than you do, and try to be persuasive yourself. :)

John, your use of language there appears to be an excellent demonstration of my earlier contention that evangelism is about sales. Would the suggestion that the purchase of "worldview" is of a kin with Indulgence, and detracts from the Glory of God, be at all hostile to your position?

Also, I should point out that "Caveat Emptor" is not a universally accepted principle, whether one trades in Truth, Worldview, Concept or Material.

John: When I say it is abusive I mean that energetically it is harming to impose upon another - irrespective of whether I actually feel it as abusive. To my understanding in everything we do say think we either harm or heal with no neutral. Evangelism is imposing and thus harming and thus abusive.

TullyCB: I understand you believe that it is your duty based on the teachings you have had - but what if those teachings are flawed??
If you just did the last part of post 17 and * Christians must walk the walk by their actions in everyday life.* that would probably be much better form of evangelising than any sort of preaching - provided the walk was being walked in truth of course - with love for all irrespective of religion, creed, colour sexual orientation etc

Paul R: "evangelism is about sales"

Absolutely. It's about persuasion. What's immoral about that? If it doesn't make sense to buy, don't buy it!

One of the last things Jesus Christ told His followers to do was to spread the good news ('gospel')about Him across the world. (see Matthew 28 and Mark 16) It is therefore reasonable to say that any Christian worthy of the name should do so enthusiastically and without apology.

John Stott has said: 'We evangelise.....because we have been told to; evangelistic inactivity is disobedience.'

Besides, Christian people have had their lives changed by faith in the Saviour Who died on the Cross, so - even on the basis both of gratitude for what He has done and of sharing that good news with someone else - there is an inner compulsion to pass the message on.

Christian love for other people should surely do no less!

I agree with an earlier comment: I find evangelism more irritating than offensive, but I believe that it can cause immense harm. The point made by the Humanist representative that religious evangelism in education exploits vulnerable children is one with which I agree. The Jewish scholar emphasised parents' rights to have religious schooling for their offspring and drew a comparison with parents' wishes to inoculate their children against dangerous diseases such as diphtheria and rubella. Did he mean that children of different religions should be educated separately and that it would be dangerous if they mixed?

To consider evangelism as 'sales' is a bit misleading, if all christians truely believed in the outcome of not believing, they should all be out there, desperately trying to save as many people from the utter torment of everlasting hell. The fact so many don't is testament to the power of the human mind to ignore that which it finds distasteful.

I agree with PastorPhillip though (gosh horror), it is a duty of christians to evangelise, as irritating as I find it. However, it should be banned to teach it to children. I would avoid mentioning any religious opinions to anyone below the age of 16, only then can they make an intelligent choice.

pastorphilip,

would you then accept that your views and actions are offensive to those who do not accept your views, and your evangelising will by necessity get you into conflict. Maybe instead of complaining about the consequences of your beliefs you should simply accept them.

Would you accept your children, if you have any, being brought up as Muslim, after all do they not have the same inner compunction and damnation for non belief, by your comments above they have as much right to brainwash your kids as you have..

John Wright is obviously one of those people who has never been conned and thinks that all people who have been conned are guilty of stupidity. He is lucky he does not have to deal with the aftermath of religious conversions or the problems caused by devout beliefs. He might realise that belief is not the same as buying a car.

Why are we not capable of deciding how we vote or get married until we are older but decisions about religion are fine from day one. Maybe the religious have stacked the deck again, or is that being too cynical.

Re children : they don't need religion as it is today in the world and many see right through it - what is appropriate is for them to be shown by example and also taught/demonstrated in the ways of love and to know that is what they are and how to make choices from there.

The preaching of the Gospel is offensive to many because it gets to the heart of man's problem and that is sin.

John, "Absolutely. It's about persuasion. What's immoral about that?"

Nothing "immoral" about it. And if Christianity were a set of practices, stories and rules that were supposed to improve peoples' lot, then that would be that, and there would be no problem with the way sales-based evangelism operated.

But by demonstration, Christ's temple isn't a market-place. Even if in keeping with the letter, evangelism as practiced violates its spirit by peddling its promise of salvation in exchange for the earthly service of its target market. God oughtn't be an incidental part of what the Church does, merely the mechanism by which its promises are supposedly met.

In treating God as it does, evangelism is rather like the child who thinks of their Dad as their source of pocket money. Not necessarily immoral, but disrespectful, and certainly not someone you'd want to take financial advice from.

Brian (#28)

Could you elaborate on how someone who doesn't believe in a divinely mandated sin could possibly find it offensive?

That's the equivalent of telling someone who doesn't care about football that Chelsea (or any other team) shouldn't play in blue as it clashes with the green grass. It's pointless and a waste of time.

PaulR, hi.

I have to say, I’m intrigued by your comments; you write, though, as if you are not a Christian (am I misreading you, it's just that you don’t seem to be writing as ‘one of the group’ #6) yet your comments appear to highlight, most clearly, one of the major issues facing the church in the contemporary world. I’m not sure how much agreement there’d be between us but I’ve been trying to raise some of these issues (within the church) for quite some time now; however, as you say in #6, “I don't see the institutional Church rushing to embrace this idea.”

So I’m curious, what’s driving your comments?

Humanist missionaries offend me

It's ok Natman...You don't believe in God...You don't believe in sin.
If you believe that man is the ultimate source of intelligence and
wisdom then prove it!

Brian (#33)

As the one putting forwards the claim for the existance of a supernatural being and sin, you are the one who has to prove yourself.

I cannot prove a negative, as you well know. I could point at an empty patch of the ground and say "There, nothing is there, therefore there is no god!", but that wouldn't be proof of anything.

Ultimately, because what I say doesn't require faith, belief or anything other than our mere existance, the burden of proof is on the believer. The fact the we are here, alive and thriving, and able to ask these questions is all the evidence I need to assert my point.

If you believe that Odin/Zeus/YHWH/Shiva/[insert name of chosen deity] is the ultimate source of intelligence and wisdom, then you prove it.

Why the rejection of the salesman analogy? We live in a world of competing beliefs, and most groups representing such beliefs want more members. So, they sell.


"John Wright is obviously one of those people who has never been conned and thinks that all people who have been conned are guilty of stupidity. He is lucky he does not have to deal with the aftermath of religious conversions or the problems caused by devout beliefs. He might realise that belief is not the same as buying a car."

I am one of those people who try to learn from experience (which, on this topic, is fairly extensive). Some religious belief is good for the believer, at least for a while. Some other 'religion' manifests negatively. I guess I don't get outraged at the existence of this myriad beliefs; I'd rather educate people and encourage learning from experience.


"evangelism is rather like the child who thinks of their Dad as their source of pocket money. Not necessarily immoral, but disrespectful, and certainly not someone you'd want to take financial advice from."

Well that may depend on the 'evangelist'. I wouldn't generalise so we think all evangelists are snake-oil salesmen. Many believe sincerely that their goods would greatly benefit the people they're preaching to, and even change their lives around for the better... and ALL believe their message is true.

But, as with any sales pitch, individuals are responsible for weighing truth and deciding what makes sense themselves. Reason is the ultimate authority.

Doyler79 (post 32):

Gee whizz. I didn’t realise you are so easily offended, which is not what you were suggesting on the Galileo thread, where you informed us that “you had a life”.

If we think that we are ‘enlightened’, whether by religion, Humanism or whatever, we will naturally try to persuade others to see the light too. As I said on the programme, I suppose Humanists are evangelists in the sense that we want to spread the good news that life can be lived free of superstition, fear and guilt and that there is a joy in discovering the truth and thinking for yourself rather being told what to think by others.

So it probably depends at least partly on the methods used to evangelise. What I said was that if you look at the history of Christianity, you will find that compulsion, indoctrination, moral blackmail and emotional manipulation have all been common features of evangelism. Christian evangelism has been humanised as societies have become more secular. Compulsion doesn’t happen on an institutional level but still often does on an individual family level. And many of the other dubious strategies are still around.

Indoctrination still goes on, especially of children, even though international conventions state that it is wrong. Ireland, north and south, is one of the worst places for child indoctrination, with the main churches still exercising undue influence on state-funded education. The NI RE syllabus, for example, is more narrowly focused on Christianity alone than in any other part of the UK. This is evangelism of the wrong kind.

Moreover, moral blackmail and emotional manipulation are still present in much evangelistic Christianity. Again, secular values have lessened the impact of threats: believe in this or else you are damned, and the earth will open and sawllow you up etc. Christians seem to be abandoning the idea of hell. And certainly Humanists don’t issue such threats. Nor do we say that there is something wrong with you if you don’t agree with us. You take our ideas, or you leave them. We believe in live and let live.

Emotional manipulation is one of the worst forms of evangelism. Humanists do not appeal to people’s emotions but to their rationality. It is reason, science, scepticism and the spirit of critical inquiry, above all, upon which civilsed society is based. These are the values that Humanists try to sell.

Love and compassion are of course important as well. And if Christians are promoting them, then we are at one with them. But we part company when they try to sell a dogma and the notion of saviours upon others, especially young people, who tend to be impressionable. There is a lot of that evangelism about in NI and I find it pernicious.

Humanist missionaries offend me

I have to say that Brian (McClinton)has never tried to evangelise any time I've met him.

I agree with Brian Thomas re. post 28 though.

McClinton, I didn't read your reply (just control f for doyler) but humanism is a waste of time. Anti-humanism is much more rationale.
Humanists are the new bigots- Did you enjoy your parade today?

Doyler:

I presume you are referring to an Orange parade, though you could mean almost anything since you insist in talking in riddles. I wouldn't be seen dead in an Orange parade, which proves that you know nothing about Humanism and even less about me.

2MP, "I’m curious, what’s driving your comments?"

I suppose I see in Christ the sort of person the world needs more of; someone prepared to challenge the authority of those who would exploit the need for faith and hope, tread on the vulnerable and cast shame on the "unclean", and do so on their own terms. I don't think I have the authority to call myself a disciple of his, nor to speak on his behalf, but while I may doubt much in this world, I'm certain that he's being woefully misrepresented, and I'd like to do what I can in rectifying that.

you only stopped going in 2007
we all know who the "humanists" are- have you ever put your life on the line to ensure children get to school, have access to water, healthcare provisions etc?

Tinpot group, tinpot -ism

regards

Paul

Thanks for your reply; I was intrigued... now you have me hooked!! :-) Why? Well, I’ve been reading what you are saying over a number of threads and it has a different tone to much of what I read on here.

At times, when I read comments like:

“But by demonstration, Christ's temple isn't a market-place.” , or, “evangelism as practiced violates its spirit by peddling its promise of salvation in exchange for the earthly service of its target market.” #29 (this thread)

or

“They're trying to get you to buy in to their assertions, to sell you a personal solution to your problems and existential anxieties.” #6 (this thread)

and then

“But it is idolatrous to identify the creed with God,” or “Choose your peers as you see fit, but God chooses you,” (PCUSA thread)


- I find they *sound* (or at least could be understood as being quite Reformed, I choose the word quite deliberately, using it instead of Evangelical)


You also write, “The ostracising element of much of evangelists' doctrines is part-and-parcel of the methodology of evangelism itself. “ # 14 (this thread)

and

“...requires less unquestioning loyalty and, I suspect, would be a lot more successful in introducing new voices to the Christian Discussion.” #6 (this thread)

and you’re sounding much more ‘Emergent’.

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not concerned that you fit into a particular box, it’s just that what you are saying isn’t said much on here so you’ve managed to get me listening.

So here’s a comment and question. I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea of (Christian) ‘evangelism’ as ‘sales’ or 'ostracising' and one of the reasons I think it happens is because Christians have forgotten what the ‘Church’ is, any thoughts?

@brianmcclinton (36)

Imagine for a moment a Christian who sincerely believes that God has created all of us, that we have fallen into rebellion and sin, that this will result in death and hell, that Jesus died and rose to make it possible to live instead and that following him as Lord and Saviour is necessary to have eternal life.

What should such a person do with their sincerely held belief? If they keep quiet, are they being loving? If they talk about hell and sin, along with heaven and grace, are they simply telling the truth (as far as they understand it) or committing a terrible wrong?

I would hope that a sincere Christian would not resort to any sort of manipulation or blackmail - that is not authentic evangelism as far as I understand it - but I don't see that simply stating the facts of the gospel necessarily amounts to these things.

At what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others about to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious? And this perniciousness you speak of - is it an objective thing that can be said to be true of the evangelist and their message, or is it a subjective thing, a response that you yourself are making, but has no bearing on how anyone else should respond?

It might come as a shock to some who follow these threads, but I agree with a lot of what Jonathan Boyd says in #43.

I don't believe in a god, or sin, hell or an afterlife, but if you do, if you subscribe to the concepts that define Christianity, you should evangelise, you should be out there, if not trying to convince people of your faith, then at least making people aware of what you believe and what you believe will happen to them if they don't.

Now, I might only be saying that to encourage people to expose their (in my view) delusional fallacies to exposure, and so hasten the demise of such dogmatic creeds, but it doesn't take away any of the urgency christians should have towards evangelism.

I might not agree with religion, but I have a lot more respect for people who uphold their beliefs than those who hide away and pretend to be 'normal'.

Jonathan:

Read my post again. Nowhere did I state that it was wrong per se of Christians to evangelise. Indeed, I said that Humanists also evangelise, in the sense that we too seek to spread the good news, i.e. that we can be free of supersitition and feel the joy of freethought.

I certainly don't object to people sharing sincerely held beliefs. My complaint is largely about the METHODS that many Christians have used, which seems to be your complaint too!

If someone wants to communicate the message of your first paragraph, then let them do so but without IMPOSING it on others, especially their children. International conventions state that children have a right not to be indoctrinated. It seems to me that too many parents in NI treat children as their possessions rather than individuals with their own rights. A 'fair' Christian parent would tell their child that this is what they believe but make it clear that there are other beliefs and opinions as well and that the child should find out about them too so that they can make up their own mind. It IS child abuse to impose your own beliefs on your children. Hence the BHA campaign: "Please don't label me; let me grow up and choose for myself".

The fact that 50% of our children are Catholic and 50% are Protestant is almost entirely the product of their upbringing, which is a very bad state of affairs. It also indicates the effectiveness of the indoctrination.

Jonathan Boyd: *that we have fallen into rebellion and sin, that this will result in death and hell, that Jesus died and rose to make it possible to live instead and that following him as Lord and Saviour is necessary to have eternal life.
If they talk about hell and sin, along with heaven and grace, are they simply telling the truth (as far as they understand it) or committing a terrible wrong?*

Jonathan whilst I understand these are sincerely held beliefs of many Christians and that you feel they are the truth and that you feel it is your duty as a Christian to tell others about this Truth - in my view it is 'committing a terrible wrong' as you put it. For me these things are false and harming to the human being, not healing. They are disempowering. They weigh down the heart of the Christian with guilt, that he is a sinner - when this is simply not true. This has consequences on the physical health as well. These understandings come from fear - fear of going to hell, being condemned etc instead of love. To know God is to know that God never condemns and never sends anyone to hell for hell does not exist. God is love, God is fire - that internal flame that is eternal in all of us - the heavens are full of fire for that is God - (this is in Christian mystical writings like Bonaventure and John of the Cross and is also in the bible) . So what force then would want to keep you away from fire, to tell you it is the last place you want to go? A force of evil that wants to keep you separate from your true nature, that is fire, that is love. By knowing this and making choices aligned with one's true nature one 'saves' oneself and experiences more love, joy and harmony in life - this is healing, this is empowering to the individual and enables one to serve with that love - this is in my view and my experience.

Jonathan Boyd
"At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious?"

Iris

I think the problem comes when the person of belief tries to impose their values on others either through the law or by denigrating them or what they do.

When Iris says that the duty of government is to uphold gods law, and she is not alone in her party believing that, then evangelism has gone too far.

When an evangelist tries to denigrate someone by telling them they are flawed, when they are not, and sell them a cure which does not work and will damage them, then evangelism has gone too far.

When evangelists try to subvert science by manipulating politics in the guise of human rights, they have gone too far. If they want to refute science then use science to do it not legislation.

When evangelists try to forcibly remove the clerical collar of another christian because they do not agree with them then they have gone too far.

When evangelists whip up a storm of religious hate against a group of people and try to have the death sentence brought in for them then they have gone too far.

Generally evangelists have gone too far when they forget that people have a right not to believe what they believe and to be free from their values.

Thanks for your comments, 2MP. I'm not sure to what extent our conversation should happen in this thread, but I'll make a note or two to ease your curiosity for now.

"I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea of (Christian) ‘evangelism’ as ‘sales’ or 'ostracising' and one of the reasons I think it happens is because Christians have forgotten what the ‘Church’ is, any thoughts?"

'Church', of course, has a very particular meaning as the body of Christ. In view of this, The Church, as a set of loosely connected institutions, can sometimes seem poorly named, being as it is driven less towards the work of healing, whether of individuals or societies, and more towards a programme of influence, lobby, the representation of conservative interests and a member's club for a clique of people looking for a kind of comfortable homogeneity.

There is a need in this world for healing, that much is clear, and there is a duty on the part of the Church to rise to that challenge. Christ did not sit around in lecture halls debating the finer details of a theological narrative, letting the sicknesses of his world fester. But is the ailment Sin? That depends. If we view Sin as the refusal to kowtow to the command of an organisation or institution of Law, then certainly not.

Sin, I think, is a kind of psychological wounding. It is how we, as humans, have learned to harm others as a result of harm done upon ourselves. To posit that all of this harm might have an initial cause resonates with people, but whatever its origin, its influence is broken through reparation, forgiveness and self-reform. It's in this sense that the pro-active reversal of the influence of Sin has always been, and will always be, in the spirit of Christ's philosophy.

But as to what constitutes Sin, and how we ought proceed in this reform, such knowledge is impossible for human faculties to ever perfectly account for. What can any one system of belief and theory do in terms of helping every human being overcome the influence sin has had on them? The world of the Roman Empire knew nothing about the technology, the environmental challenges and the economic realities of today's world, and how these might drive humanity to cause harm.

The "sales" approach is putting a "thing" at the core of the Church. "Christianity" is a set of instructions inspired by Christ, with the promise of the life eternal as its hook. But that wasn't Christ's essential point with respect to outreach. The idea of Christ was methodological - God, not tradition or a set of teachings, and our love of God and Neighbour, rather than our need to belong, are what drive our actions.

Of course, what's shocking about this idea is that it's in no way new. The reformation was about precisely this point. That we've "forgotten" what the Church is supposed to be would be very awkward given that precisely this idea is supposed to be central to the very existence of Protestantism. Except, of course, that the splintered and fragmented nature of the Protestant church suggests that the strategy of Sectarianism is an inappropriate implementation. Perhaps it's time we looked again at the form the opposition to Catholicism took, and wonder whether we couldn't better channel our criticisms constructively than destructively.

@brianmcclinton (45)

Read my post again. Nowhere did I accuse of you saying it was wrong for Christians to evangelise. Rather I was trying to understand what you consider acceptable or unacceptable in evangelism and what your basis for differentiating between the two is.

I'll repeat the relevant questions again:

At what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others amount to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious? And this perniciousness you speak of - is it an objective thing that can be said to be true of the evangelist and their message, or is it a subjective thing, a response that you yourself are making, but has no bearing on how anyone else should respond?


Regarding children, at what point do you take away the right of a parent to bring up their child in the best way they see fit? I'm not yet a father, but I want my children to grow up knowing Jesus because I think that will honour God and be the best thing for them. What right to you have to say that I'm wrong to do that? Wouldn't a government edict banning sharing faith with your own children be as tyrannical as a theocratic edict forcing atheist parents to send these children to Sunday school? How do you decide what parents are allowed to tell their children? What gives one worldview the right to impose itself on others in the way you propose a sequel worldview impose itself on Christians (and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and so on)?

The BHA campaign was absurdly illogical. There's no such thing as a context free upbringing, I seriously doubt that any of the campaign's leaders refrain from giving their own children a secular humanist upbringing and the ideal of a context-free upbringing has never been objectively demonstrated to be a good thing for children.

@Eunice (46)

Eunice, I respect the way you wear your heart on your sleeve and openly and honestly state your beliefs. That's commendable in an age where we're encouraged to keep beliefs private. In the same spirit therefore, let me say this: Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God. If he was right when he said that, then what you say is wholly mistaken and leads people away from the truth - something you seem concerned about. If Jesus wasn't the Son of God then he was a charlatan, a liar, a dangerous man whose words weren't loving but deceitful and tinged with madness. Why you'd listen to anything a man like that would say, I don't know. Now if you think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, don't you think that his ability to define and articulate love will be greater than our own since he'll be in more touch with the truth? If so, then why not look at how he defines it?

@Dave (47)

Don't laws by definition impose values? Are you saying you don't think we should have any laws? Or did you intend more nuance than you articulated? Regardless, it's something of a distraction since the making of laws isn't evangelism.

From what you say about denigration, it would seem that you see Christian evangelism as wrong because you see it as a lie. That's all well and ooh for you, but plenty of people believe it's the truth and doubtless there are many things you sincerely say which explicitly or implicitly denigrate others who may well think that you're spreading a lie. When different worldviews and beliefs interact therefore, how do you say what is good or bad evangelism? If you say something I think is wrong and I feel offended, does that make you a bad evangelist? Is this a subjective issue or is there an objective truth you measure people's statements against?

The rest of what you say doesn't seem to really address the question I asked or if it does, it does so only tangentially. Saying that telling someone about a matter of life and death is pernicious if it involves forcibly removing their clothing is about as relevant as saying it is pernicious when it involves burying them alive in a mountain of cabbage. Burying them is wrong in itself, but isn't part of the act of proclamation or the content of the message being proclaimed.

@PaulR (48)

I'm curious about where you get your ideas from. Is it personal philosophy, an examination of scripture, a combination of the two or something else entirely? For instance, how do you set about defining sin and what role does a God-given biblical definition have?

Jonathan: for me Jesus was a Son of God who embodied the love of God and provides a template or example for the rest of us. In my view, each human being is a Son of God - the same as Jesus. The difference is he knew it, claimed it, lived it and had evolved more than we have as a result of his own choices (including previous lives but I expect you will not agree with reincarnation -and that's fine - you don't need to for this point). It is our own ignorance and lack of awareness regarding our true nature and potential and how to live according to that true nature that keeps us stuck as seemingly lesser than he - but we are not. God loves all equally - he cannot have a special son or one. I understand this may seem far out given the state of humanity and man's inhumanity to man - but for me this again results from our own lovelessness that is then projected onto others and ties in with Paul R point on sin.

Paul R:
You say * Sin, I think, is a kind of psychological wounding. It is how we, as humans, have learned to harm others as a result of harm done upon ourselves. To posit that all of this harm might have an initial cause resonates with people, but whatever its origin, its influence is broken through reparation, forgiveness and self-reform. It's in this sense that the pro-active reversal of the influence of Sin has always been, and will always be, in the spirit of Christ's philosophy.*

I would propose a variation on your take. Saying that we harm because of the harm done to us - means you are blaming someone else for why you harm. ie. it was done to you - hence you do it to another.
For me, it starts and ends with the self. I imagine you are aware that the original word for sin was hamartia - meaning to miss the mark. For me, our true nature is love, so when we act/speak/thing from that which is not love - we are 'missing the mark' ( what is called sin in christianity). However, this is part and parcel of the human condition - we all do this every day in many ways. It is not something that is punished but there are consequences due to the laws of cause and effect. It is our own lovelessness that gets projected on to others and in the emptiness of love evil can work through us. Someone who is love full - could not abuse or harm another. So to heal - is to know who you are (love) and make choices that are self-loving, self healing. This builds more love in the body and the more love-full we are - the less we harm self and other.

Paul #48

Another interesting reply, as is your most recent one on the PCUSA thread.

Having initially said in my post 31 that you were “most clearly” highlighting one of the major issues facing the church, I am now less sure of that clarity.

I think, too, that this thread is a perfectly useful forum for this conversation, because you are evangelising. Perhaps you haven’t thought of it that way, but that is what you are doing.

There are quite a few things which you are saying that I can relate to and agree with, for example, “Christ did not sit around in lecture halls debating the finer details of a theological narrative, letting the sicknesses of his world fester.” No, he didn’t, but that does not mean that there was *no* theological narrative, and interestingly you go on to write such a narrative of your own.

For example, you define ‘sin’, ‘Christianity’, ‘The Reformation’; now at this point I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your views, I’m more interested in what they are, or perhaps I should say, what they *mean*.

For example, on the PCUSA thread (and in the context of theological narrative and evangelism [story telling] it is I think reasonable to refer to it) you say, “And this (truth in Christ beyond a figurehead) is lost when Christianity's practice is dictated by Hermeneutics.” which sounds all well and good, Jesus is, if course, more than our interpretation, but, generally speaking, it is by the ‘written word’ that we know the ‘Word’, not exhaustively, but truly. It is one thing to say that we must not be idolatrous about our creeds, or that we must not worship our institutional interpretation of the bible, or that ‘without works faith is dead’, it is quite another to say (and you seem to come close) that our ‘Hermeneutics’ is hiding God. We *all* do it, interpret, there is no escaping this. We either know the Word through the written word or by some other means.

The failure of our Christian philosophy does not necessitate the tension between ‘word’ and ‘Word’ that your comments seem to suggest.

But there’s certainly room for a conversation here. So I'll ask you a question you suggested back in post 6 - what books are you reading?

2MP: We either know the Word through the written word or by some other means.

The written word can only go so far - it provides knowledge, understanding but not necessarily true knowing. So my vote is 'by some other means' . You'll have read enough of my posts to know what that is!! haha :-)

Jonathan (49):

You are NOT listening. I said it was wrong to evangelise by using: (a) compulson - believe this or else you will be imprisoned, tortured, burnt at the stake, forced to recant, censored etc. etc.; (b) indoctrination - inculcating ideas and attitudes through rote learning, engagement in routines and rituals, emotionally charged presentations, preventing critical investigation, presenting only one viewpoint as if it were obviously true etc; (c) moral blackmail - you are deficient or evil if you don’t accept what I say and/or you are doomed to hell etc; (d) emotional manipulation - appeals to desire for easy, pleasant answers, preying on hopes and fears, surrender of individuality to the collective, incontrollable hysteria, rather than the use of reason, open debate etc.

All these methods are pernicious because they deny people the right to choose freely for themselves.

If Christians try to persuade in an open manner using reason, then I have no objection. Indeed, as Natman has suggested that is a challenge secularists welcome.

I think you will find much of the rest of your posting to me is self-contradictory. You say you want to bring up children ‘knowing Jesus’. What about also knowing Buddha? And Confucius? And Socrates? As you say, what gives ONE worldview (Christian or otherwise) to impose itself on others?

Humanists do not seek to impose one worldview. We believe that children should be informed about a range of worldviews, including Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Humanism, so that they can make up their own minds. They should approach Humanism critically and sceptically, as all the others.

You say there is no such thing as a context-free upbringing. I think this is to some extent correct, especially in NI, but I also think it is the moral duty of a parent to widen their children’s horizons, not restrict them. It is certainly the moral duty of a school to do so. It can and should counter the parental context that you talk about, not merely reinforce it.

Having said that, parents in the real world are increasingly sceptical, yet open-minded, and have no problems with telling their children about the breadth of philosophies out there and letting them find their own truth (but then, Jonathan, we live in dear o’l norn iron where the Lord still looks down upon us from on high and wants to help us find 'the truth' because we cannot be trusted with freedom of thought, can we?).

SINFUL men just can't take hearing the TRUTH, maybe when they are being sent to the Lake of FIRE, they will be sorry then and only then, that they complained, but it's too late, seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon Him while he maybe near?.

Brian Mc C - I agree with your post 53.
I would also add Re the upbringing - I agree all upbringings are influenced by many many factors (not context free as it was put) - and even if you fill a child's head with knowledge about all these philosophies the child will adopt ways of being based on the experiences they have and how they are treated by the parents and relatives etc before he/she can even understand the word philosophy. So I propose that living and demonstrating the ways of true love to the child would be more influential than any book/knowledge/philosophy.

Holy mackerel - I go away to Donegal for a few days, and I return to THIS mess of pottage! Well done, people - nice work. Things seem to be ticking over perfectly adequately here, but I suppose I ought to fire in a few little thoughts from Helio, simply to satisfy my innate narcissism that *someone* reads my posts, even if it is just one of the mod-bots (hi guys!), or Will, trying to see if I'm slagging of that decerebrate cabbagemonger Al Plantinga again.

Aaaaaaaanywaaaaay, here goes. I welcome evangelism. It is, for me, an opportunity. I have no problem with someone coming up to me, sticking a poorly-printed (and breathtakingly inane, as they all are) tract about Billy's tuberculosis or the godly fisherman or some similar infantile twaddle in my hand, because that is my licence to turn from the passive live-and-let-live mild-mannered Heliopolitan into AtheistMan, the donkey-slaying pixie-vanquishing creationist-trampling superhero, who knows his bible far better than any of these bibbling morons you meet door-to-door or at impromptu "gospel" rallies on Bangor promenade (I know, because I have actually BEEN one of these bibbling morons).

I find the Mormons to be the most amusing fodder, but JWs and even regular Presbyterians are interesting too. One reason is that they often come around in pairs - one more senior and one junior. So I do my arguing with the senior one, and exchange knowing winks with the junior one - the audience. I'm not trying to win a battle - just plant a seed. And those seeds bear fruit. When people realise that the bible does NOT say what they have been told in Sunday School; when they realise that it is riddled with mistakes and outright falsehoods; when they realise that their pastors, priests and ministers are either supremely ignorant about the natural world and ancient history, or they lie or confabulate to cover it up; when they realise that morality comes from our interactions with those around us, and NOT from some made-up space pixie; when they realise that "theology" is the *drag* queen of the sciences; when they realise that they have been taken for a ride by people who are dumb as a box of rocks, and although well-intentioned, lack the moral scruple to actually examine their own "sincerely held beliefs" (not a plus in my book - sincerity is so often the cloak of the buffoon); when they see that the whole vast panoply that "faith" brings them is but a series of rabid imaginings and encrustations from a more ignorant past, and that the wonders of science and freethought are far more enlightening, ennobling and emboldening than any writings of the ancients, unable as they were to stand on the shoulders of midgets, let alone giants - THEN we see a little light dawning - slow at first, but brightening gradually until the pure sun shines through, and the old dismal darkness is dispelled by the warm rays of reason.

I am delighted to say that I have seen this happen many times, and it is so welcome, that I simply love evangelism. It really is the undoing of the simplistic nonsense that is evangelical Christianity. Its Achilles heel, if you will.

I can has self-wurf nao?

@Eunice #55 - Actually, I couldn't agree more. Well said, O ditsy one! ;-)

Helio

Get the old batteries recharged in Donegal?

Chakras back in line?

@brianmcclinton (53)

I see my the auto-correct has gone and mangled a couple of words, so I apologise for any confusion that has called (for instance 'secular' becoming 'sequel').

You've spoken with a lot more clarity in your most recent post, which I appreciate, though I think your definition of indoctrination lacks nuance. Are all routines or rituals bad? Is presenting only one viewpoint as true bad if you believe that it is the only true viewpoint?

For instance, if a child asks a question about the world, I fail to see the value in giving them a range of answers , only one of which you believe to be true. I fail to see how it is moral to confuse and mislead a child when you can tell them the truth. There is value in understanding what others believe, but why would I want my children (if I was a parent) to believe a lie?

I also fail to see the self-contradiction you accuse me of. I think it's wrong for followers of one worldview to deny parents of another worldview the right to bring their children up in their worldview. I also think it's naive to say that children should be presented with a range of worldviews. After all there are near countless different views out there, but limited time, so choices have to made about which ones to present. If there are grounds to exclude some views because they are of no benefit, does it not follow that there might be grounds to exclude all but the one you believe to be true?

I can't help but wonder if the secular humanist attitude here is limited in its perspective by lack of belief in an afterlife. If we only have one life to live and enjoy living it by whatever worldview we choose, then what does it really matter what we believe? On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, then your choice of worldview, regardless of the happiness or success it brings in this life, may have serious repercussions in the next. Similarly a lack of devotion or sense of responsibility to a deity may be a limiting factor. If you are not accountable to anyone for what you teach to your children, then of course you'll be a lot happier to expose your child to multiple worldviews. On the other hand if you wish to honour God and feel a sense of responsibility to bring your child up worshipping God, then things are going to be entirely different. Jesus had few hards to say about those who teach children, but what he did say was unequivocally condemnatory towards those who mislead them.

Ultimately, I think that the moral duty of a parent is to do good for their child. Within a Christian context, that means telling them that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour and that any other view of him is wrong. Nothing wrong with saying that other worldviews exist, but it's always going to have to be with the caveat that they are idolatrous, wrong and harmful. to do otherwise would be harmful for the child and dishonour God.

Helio:

Good to see that the clear air of Donegal has blown away the cobwebs. A nice counterblast, but I think you are interpreting evangelism too simplistically. In other, more insidious forms - compulsion, indoctrination, emotional manipulation and moral blackmail, for example - it is far more dangerous. Most of us can cope with the tract man and the megaphone preacher, but Bruno and Galileo couldn't cope with the Inquisition, Joyce couldn't cope with the censorship, young people often can't recover from the invitation to hysteria, and there are still those who quake at the prospect of the flames of hell.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

brianmcclinton,
I tried to express something similar to Jonathon, but it wasn't nuanced enough for him. I really wish he could understand the damage evangelism, particularly in its worst forms, can do. I regard some levels of indoctrination as psychological abuse.

Helio, I realise it might be an intellectual game for you, and please do enjoy it, I do too, but please never let them get away with it, there are not enough of us mopping up after them.

Brian- "moral blackmail - you are deficient or evil if you don’t accept what I say and/or you are doomed to hell etc; (d) emotional manipulation ... appeals to desire for easy, pleasant answers, preying on hopes and fears ... are pernicious because they deny people the right to choose freely for themselves."

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that moral blackmail or emotional manipulation denies people the right to choose freely for themselves. I agree, there are dirty tactics, but by casting such a wide net you may be regarding most of the things people believe as outside of their free choosing!

An appeal to an easy, pleasant answer, for example, is clearly misguided and misleading, but the hearer still has the right (and, I say, the duty) to examine what they're being told and choose truth themselves. That's what you and I did. I think it's just a tad insulting to assume that we're smarter than the unwashed masses, or that people are generally incapable of distinguishing freely between credible and ridiculous claims.

I would agree with you that people often do not choose the right belief, and often act irrationally, but I wouldn't put that at the feet of the evangelist who uses music to create a receptive mood in their audience; I'd put it back at the feet of the people for willfully detaching their anchor on truth and allowing themselves to be swept away by idiocy.

If someone tells a person that they're doomed to a lake of fire if they don't repent -- good old-fashioned Northern Ireland street evangelism -style -- it's entirely the responsibility of the individual to consult their sense of reason in deciding whether to believe it. Don't you think?

Jonathan- "if a child asks a question about the world, I fail to see the value in giving them a range of answers, only one of which you believe to be true. I fail to see how it is moral to confuse and mislead a child when you can tell them the truth."

There are many questions I can't answer with an adequate degree of certainty. If my child asks me, "What happens after we die?", I can't tell them "You go to heaven if you're a Christian and hell if you're not." The truth of the matter is that nobody knows what happens after we die, because nobody comes back from death. I may believe a certain thing on faith, but that can't be represented as 'truth'.

Generally, to borrow from another controversial subject, I'll "teach the debate" to my 7 year-old. If he asks about a subject upon which reasonable people are generally divided, I'll tell him "Some people think X.... others say Y... but nobody knows for sure." Is that wrong? Of course I can't tell him about every single worldview, but I'll hit a few big ones and generally represent that nobody knows. A healthy "I don't know" could change the world.

Wouldn't I be doing him a huge disservice to teach him only what I think is true as though it's the only opinion on the matter? My job is not to tell my child what he should believe; that will stunt his intellectual growth, discourage free thought, lower the value he ascribes to reason, and encourage rebellion eventually anyway once he realizes he was being taught my beliefs as though they were universally-held truths.

My job is to educate him so that he's equipped someday to establish beliefs for himself. Anything less bothers me greatly, perhaps in the vein of Dawkins' aversion to children being called "Christian" or "Muslim". There are no Christian children (below a certain age). There are only the indoctrinated.... and that IS abusive.

Helio : Welcome back! I'm still choking on my breakfast at your confession to having once been a 'bibbling moron' peddling your wares on the street! We all have a past I suppose! THough tis no wonder you are so anti -God/ atheist now - for me now that is one of the very real and true damages of evangelism. People get turned off for life. I know you will say it is different for you - using reason etc etc

@John Wright (64)

You may not be able to answer certain questions with any certainty, but there are plenty of people who have sufficient conviction and assurance to do so. Why shouldn't they tell their children the truth that they are convicted/assured of?

Incidentally, given that we're talking about evangelism rather than the broader subject of discipleship, I've been assuming that we're talking about sharing the good news of salvation, rather than less central things like beliefs about creation.

Eunice, I am not anti-god; I am anti people saying stupid things that have no basis in reality. I am pro challenging people to think outside the box (and the book).

Brian, fair point. Letting people know that atheism is acceptable and rational provides one escape route from the intellectual chastity belt that is religious indoctrination. Some irony there :-)

Helio: goodness - what's happening - now I agree with you! Just how far outside the box are you prepared to go though??!! haha :-)

Jonathan: I do understand you feel very committed to your version of Truth - thing is - that for many people it is not Truth but is actually the opposite and is false and is harming and has consequences. NOw if you wanted to keep that to yourself that's fine - that's your choice. Problem is when it gets imposed onto other people who then also get harmed by it. The proof of the pudding as they say is in the eating - 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. FOr me, that is someone who is loving and non-judgmental of others, who is not emotional/hot tempered/angry etc etc, who treats and sees all others as equal to them - no-one higher and no-one lower, who is gentle and endeavours to serve with that gentleness and love in all that they do and who lives with a high degree of integrity and responsibility for themselves and allows others to live and make their own choices without imposing their way onto them. Who teaches by example, by how they live, not by words or dogmas or doctrines or empty meaningless promises/statements that have no bearing in reality. The marker of truth is the body and truth can be felt and known by the inner heart - we each have the wisdom within us that is wiser than any book (and ok it can take a while/practice for us to re-connect to that) 'be a lamp unto oneself'. So if evangelical Christians lived lives of love, joy and harmony and vitality and well-being, with the qualities I mentioned above then ok - I would be interested to know what you were doing and how you are living and what could I learn from it. But my experience is otherwise - I have found them to be very judgmental and quick to condemn, criticise and preach to others ... and underneath that they are quite angry and that gets projected onto others. This is not an example nor a 'Truth' that I want to follow given these outcomes.

With reference to comment #66, one of the reasons I am happy to have someone to evengelise to me is that, as Jonathan has said, it's about sharing the good news of salvation, and not a debate about core christian principles. The assumption on the part of the evangelist is that the victim/target/sinner already has a base belief in god, sin and the need for salvation. I feel it's my role to challange that presumption, as someone who doesn't hold to any of those core values. Too many christians plod through life without thinking too deeply about the fundamentals of their belief, and just how much it's based on faith. I enjoy the challenge of confronting them about that.

The outcome of the discussion is one of two things; either the Christian gets the chance to reaffirm their beliefs in their faith by justifying it to someone with very different opinons thus strengthening their convictions, or I manage to convince someone that their faith is based on uncertain grounds and I've opened their eyes to a different perspective. In either situation, someone 'wins'.

I think there should be more atheist 'evangelists'; stopping people on the street and telling them that there is no god, that they're not a sinner so there's no one to blame for the bad things and to be good to themselves and others, because this is the only chance you'll get.

Hi Eunice, I read your post...as you laughingly told me to.

Then after I read it, I laughed even more.

You do have one or two good points but the rest is opposed to Biblical teaching.

I don't whether you've thought it up or read someone elses thinking but you're way off truth.

@Natman (69)

I wouldn't mind running into an atheist evangelist, precisely for the reasons you wouldn't mind running into a Christian one. I'm all for others starting conversations about God - makes my life a bit easier if I don't have to make the opening myself. We seem to have lost out on the idea of debate in the public square where different worldviews, philosophies and religions can debate and persuade the public.

@Eunice (68)

'I do understand you feel very committed to your version of Truth - thing is - that for many people it is not Truth but is actually the opposite and is false and is harming and has consequences.'

The thing is Eunice, it can't be true to me and false to someone else. The facts are either true, in which I'm right while someone else is wrong, or the facts are false, in which case I' wrong and the other person is right. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.

I sympathise with your reaction to evangelicals. We're not very good at living out what we believe. On the other hand, very few people are any good at consistently living out the positive things that they believe. I also think that you've swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction by saying that actions are all that matters and beliefs count for nothing. Thinking particularly of evangelism, aren't words necessary to communicate the significance of actions? As a Christian, I believe that faith must be accompanied by good works, otherwise it's a death faith and not really faith at all. But I also believe that non-Christians can do plenty of good things, so simply being good doesn't necessarily distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. It's pretty hard to communicate to people that good works can't save them from the consequences of their rebellion against God and that only faith in Jesus Christ can do that without using words. Similarly, I fail to see how you could articulate your philosophy about love and energy simply by actions.

More good stuff, 2manypeters.

I accept your suggestion that I might be evangelising, though note that as I do not adhere to any particular tradition or "system" of thinking, it would be difficult to explain what, exactly, I was evangelising. There's not much in the way of coherence in terms of how I address the questions involved here, which I think is a necessary part of the process of growth. Much of what I have to say is in tension with itself because it's still being worked on, and I think talking about it with people is good in learning where perhaps the tension is in greatest need of resolution. I also express lots of what I'm thinking in the form of instruction or principle; this is to be read as a quirk of the mode of expression, and I don't want anyone to think I'm insisting on something as a matter of public correctness (unless I explicitly say so, of course).

To deal with Jonathan's question as well here, my project is an ongoing attempt to take the resonant ideas of the Emergent school and strip them of the implicit postmodernity they deploy. Don Miller's books probably influenced me quite a bit with respect to the idea of Christianity as Action over System and of God as Person over Notion, and Brian McLaren and Phyllis Tickle's views on the role of community and culture in relation to it are just as relevant.

But the problem of normativity is something that has always struck me as worrying in this idea; if my relationship with God is something that only the two of us have access to, then what's to say it's really God, as opposed to something similarly radiant, knowledgable and terrifying merely pretending to be so?

This, of course, must be where the idea of a living Scripture must come back into play, and in this respect, I think I borrow more from secular Analytic philosophers than I do from Church tradition. It's just not good enough to see an account of God as something static and timeless. We need an account, yes, because we need to be held to account so that our fellows can determine when we're engaged in something damaging, and when our trust is too much in the cultural phantoms that we mistakenly put in God's place from time to time.

But this account can't be rigid. It has to be able to reflect change in the evidence of what we're accounting for, as we ourselves grow and acquire new information, and so too must our constructed theories of meaning. We Aren't Infallible. We make mistakes, and our presumptions, understandings and theories are always only at best partial. The process of shifting our theory to match the evidence is necessitated by the limitation of cognition.

This isn't disrespect. It's just a reflection of the weakness of the human form that we've got to accept as part of our relationships with God. And in accepting that, rather than trying to hide it, our relationship becomes much more open.

The question of the validity of Hermeneutics now becomes salient, though I suppose my point was, as always, a little too dramatic. The problem is that there is a danger, as in all relationships, of fetishising the Other. Which do I love; God, or the idea of God? My thought is that a certain kind of scriptural tradition is presented with God, but then, having absorbed His/Her/Its image, focuses on the image, forgetting that God goes on even after the moment depicted has been passed. What kind of relationship is it that only loves the other for what they've done for me?

The image isn't the subject of my affection. Not even the collection of stories about our time together, our joint accomplishments or a history of our relationship are what love is. The image is for reminding you when you're separated from each other, for showing your friends or for pinning up on your wall. Those things are outward signs, and that's it (though obviously such outward expression flows from a healthy relationship). So yes, interpret, and acknowledge the need for the publicity of that interpretation, but don't think of the interpretation as the basis of the relationship, as Fundamentalism is explicitly trying to do. The interpretation is posterior.

(Incidentally, deep in dissertation work as I am, my reading for the moment is constrained to the Philosophy of Language, but I can certainly pass on tips on Constructivism if anyone's interested)

@Jonathan,
If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.

That is a very very big if.
Most people regard those "facts" as untrue and inconsistent with history, science, philosophy, and even the very notion of a god who could be described as "intelligent".

I might just as easily counter that if Kevin is an invisible fruitbat who imparts the secrets of eternal life and humanity's happiness to me when no-one else is around, and only those who believe me will partake of that happiness, then similarly the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.

Jesus (assuming he existed) was a messianic pretender who was executed by the Romans for challenging their authority, and that is pretty much it. Poor dead Jesus.

Brian T: I may be far from your understanding of Truth but that is not the same as being far from Truth. In post 68 I explain some of my reasons for why I know that the evangelical version of Truth is not actually Truth and in addition I would include my own lived experience and transformation. You seem to have made an idol out of the bible - if it's not in the bible it can't be true and all that is true is in the bible - according to you. Rather than repeat rote messages based on biblical indoctrination why not suspend that for a few moments and ask your own heart - is this consistent with a God that is all loving?? Would an all loving God punish?? That does not mean love cannot be firm/strong/disciplined nor is it a push over or permit evil.

Jonathan:**If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.**
The first part is right the latter part after God is wrong in my view. Jesus Christ is a Son of God and so are you and everyone else as I understand and experience it. We can only be 'saved' from the suffering of this world by living as he lived - according to the ways of love and grounded in the truth that he was and we are love. Because everything we do/say and think has a consequence - it is better for us to live according to our true nature and to be in harmony with that - not resisting and fighting it as we do.

The Christian and non-christian who do good works are both coming from their own heart - there have been plenty of Christians who have done very bad things so it's not about the teachings/words per se but what is in a person's heart.
Actions speak louder than words! And if you/we are going to use words they should be (as much as possible but without perfection) congruent with the actions of the person that is speaking them. I right alot on here about love and I endeavour to live from what I know - but I also know I'm not perfect and I make mistakes or react to things and act/speak in ways that are not loving all of the time - but I am aware of that and I endeavour to correct it. But if I was writing about love and joy and then going around being angry or abusive on a regular/daily basis and not addressing that then of course there is no congruence and no integrity.
For me it's not about faith in Jesus CHrist - it's about knowing that I am a son of God the same as him and having faith in myself to make the changes and live according to the ways of love by dealing with all the stuff that feeds the opposite of that - the self-loathing, the self denigration, the self-disregard borne out of false misbeliefs and misperceptions about myself. I am not unique - these things are common to the human condition - many, dare I say everybody, carries (often unconsciously) false beliefs about not being good enough, being bad, unworthy, unlovable etc which are just reinforced by the 'sinner' label of Christianity. Hence why for me this form of teaching is evil - it promotes separation from one's true essence that is pure love.

How could God make you any less than love??? You are made from love,with love, in the image and likeness of love. Hence why for me religion (and particularly fundamentalist evangelical forms of it) as it stands to day has alot to answer for. It either keeps people believing these false beliefs and misperceptions or turns them away from God and the Truth of their true nature, in my view.

@PaulR (71)

Paul, I've done a bit of reading on the emerging church and find myself in two minds about it. On the one hand there seems to be a lot of good work going on in terms of highlighting some of the current weakness of the church and asking plenty of good questions. On the other hand, the answers a lot of emergent-types reach seem to owe a lot more to human philosophy or personal desires than to anything God has said about the issue. There also seem to be a lot of false dichotomies presented or a desire to be contrary for the sake of being subversive.

Take for example Christianity as Action/System. Christians believe things and do things. We call the system of beliefs 'Christianity' and the things people do 'good works' or something along those lines. Talking about Christianity as Action or System seems to be just abusing language. The concern behind this, that Christians aren't sufficiently engaged in good works/acts of mercy/social action/kingdom living is a valid one, but the way emergents often frame the issue and the answer they present s a wild and dangerous overreaction that unbalances things in the opposite direction.

Or take the idea of haven an account of God versus being held to account. Why are these things placed in opposition? Why can't God give a timeless account of himself that is relevant to every age and culture? Why would believing that he has done so prevent anyone from being held to account? Indeed, isn't some sort of account of God necessary in order to provide a standard to which people can be held to account. The alternative is for accountability to be reckoned against a human standard in which case you've got secular humanism, not Christianity.

Or take the idea that hat we're infallible, therefore we must be idling to change. Certainly within the reformed tradition, that's a major point. The church reformed and always reforming. But Change doesn't occur for change's sake. There are some things we can be reasonably certain about and aren't terribly likely to be proved wrong. Some things in the Bible are abundantly clear and obvious. Or to take an example from another field, science is always provisional and ready to be overturned when a better theory comes along, but there are some things that work so well that they're unlikely to be modified or if they are, it won't be to a major extent e.g. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism or the laws of thermodynamics. Within the emerging/emergent movement, there seems to be this idea that everything should be up for grabs or that certainty is a bad thing when in fact God has blessed us with many things we can be sure of and many things which can give us assurance. How awful would it be if we couldn't be sure of his love? How difficult would it have been for the Israelites to trust him if they didn't have the certainty of looking back to his work in the Exodus? What hope is there for a Christian if they can't be sure of the resurrection?

Or take the idea of only loving God for what he has done for me. Isn't that something of a cliché and caricature? I can't think of any mainline denomination or major evangelical group that would encourage that sort of thinking. Within the reformed camp, what is the famous answer to the question 'What is the chief end of man?' - to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Again there's a valid concern here that God is being demeaned and diminished rather than enjoyed for his infinite majesty, but the response is so divergent from reality that it's of little value.

To be honest, a lot of emergent talk just comes across as philosophical naval-gazing, subversive rebellion for the sake of being different and elevation of human philosophy over God-revealed truth.

@Helio (73)

That's rather my point. The consequences have more to do with the truth of the statement than whether I believe that they are true. If they are false, then Christians are to be pitied. If they are true, then non-Christians need to repent. Whether Eunice, you or I or anyone else thinks that they're true or not doesn't change that.

Kevin's a fruitbat?

Gonny, who'd have thought.

I'd him down as a Koala Bear with a fondness for porridge! ;-)

Three cousins who live in the woods and all that!

I'm curious Eunice, why do you care about Jesus? If we're all sons of god, then what's special about him? He claimed to be the only way to the Father, that there was something unique about him that we don't have. Was he right? Was he mistaken? Was he lying?

Jonathan: I disagree that he gave the message that he was unique and had something that we don't have or can't do - 'these things and more you shall do' and more that for me reflect he saw all as equal - eg the master and servant etc. Re the claim to be the only way comes down to interpretation and understanding. I gather that you see Jesus the person as 'the way' and that that was what he was claiming. Whereas my understanding is that Christ is the way - and Christ is the light and love of God - something that each person can embody if they so choose and make loving choices accordingly. Christ is not exclusive to Jesus - he was however, the first person to embody that on earth that we know of and thus made it possible for the rest of us. The buddha grounded the understandings at a mental level but Jesus embodied them.
He says this (I am the way) in John where there are a number of "I am' statements - I am the light etc .....I am statements are statements of being - and these are common to all people as it is our fundamental being and common to being human. We could each say - I am the light - because we are energetic beings of light - the thing is we don't choose to live according to that - so we dampen our light, become more dense. For me Jesus provides an example/template of someone who knew who he was and lived according to that truth, he embodied the love and light of God and had mastered life on earth - to know he was in/on the earth but not of the earth. We can each know this for ourselves and master life on earth as he did by making choices aligned with our true nature: love.

Jonathan #66- You ask why people with the conviction and assurance to answer questions about the afterlife etc. with certainty shouldn't tell their children the truth they're convicted of. I think the answer is that there's a category difference between things that are universally agreed-upon truths in the enlightened world, like the sciences, for example, and religious belief which is subjectively held. The category of 'truth' I teach my child unequivocally is that derived from collective human reason. The category I "teach the debate" rather than teach as 'truth' is that derived from human faith. I think that's a worthwhile distinction, don't you?

Paul

I'm pretty much with Jonathan on this one.

The emergent experience has raised a number of valid issues about faith and creeds and action and community. There's a lot to learn from their conversation in this regard, particularly for the institutional church. But their concerns are not new, church history is full of communities of Christians exploring faith and action and community.

Part of our problem is that NI is so obviously biased towards a 'sell and sign up' approach to faith that when Christians (and let's face it, most Emergent types are already (evangelical) Christians or have had some kind of Christian background) hear about 'community' or 'social action' or 'growing into faith' rather than signing up and repeating some kind of mantra as if it was a magic spell then they think it's new - it isn't.

So I have a lot of time for a lot of what you have said, boundary-less churches and the like, but all that is already in the bible.

I can agree too with Eunice that how we live is important, that her experience is that she has found (Christians) to be very judgmental and quick to condemn, criticise and preach to others... and perhaps part of the problem is as you have defined it, that signing up to a form of words becomes the all. It can promote a kind of thinking which goes something like, 'God wants me to believe, I have believed, God is impressed with me cos I'm a good boy, now if only you'd do what I have done'....

But that is a caricature, a very popular and sincerely believed one, but a caricature none the less.

In terms of 'evangelism' then, it might be interesting to impose a self ban for a while, force Christians to demonstrate their faith in another way... act in such a way which provokes people to ask, why do you live as you live.

Interesting, some of the Atheists are happy with 'evangelism', some of the Christians recognise it's limits.

2MP: *In terms of 'evangelism' then, it might be interesting to impose a self ban for a while, force Christians to demonstrate their faith in another way... act in such a way which provokes people to ask, why do you live as you live.*
I agree wholeheartedly with you 2MP. Comes back to the 'by their fruits ye shall know them' . Yes this includes service but also it is how they are in themselves - are they joyful, playful, vital or full of sadness/anger/being critical etc There is a risk that some people interpret it as deeds only for others irrespective of how the person lives themselves and that is erroneous in my view. One flows out of the other - true self love cannot but mean love for the other. BTW re Christians -in above post I was referring to my experience of fundamentalist/evangelical christians rather than all christians - as I have experience of those who are not like that as well. I also accept it is a generalisation and I am happy to find otherwise!

Jonathan, thanks for your comments, particularly RE: "On the other hand, the answers a lot of emergent-types reach seem to owe a lot more to human philosophy or personal desires than to anything God has said about the issue."

I think this gets right to the core of the issue by highlighting the two seemingly opposed poles of discussion. The first is the problem of overphilosophising, and the second is the question of Biblical Authority.

I imagine my response to these issues could be rather predictable, but my belief is that neither ought be held as themselves of like authority with God, being fundamentally artifacts transcribed by man of an image of God. Can God reliably inform humanity of Him/Her/Itself? Sure. Can Man reliably write it down? Of course not. Why not, if the Spirit is at work? Because Language is Secular. It's the difference between (W)ord and (w)ord, as we were discussing earlier. Divinity informs and composes the former, but the latter is all Man. Vocabulary, grammar and logic are learned in response to other human beings, and the systems we learn have been built and continue to be taught to facilitate participation in society. No amount of spiritual influence can have language do something other than it's capable of handling, and the only way of working God into it is to twist logic, to be prepared to use nonsense constructs and alien words.

Of course, that brings up the following point: What, really, am I doing talking about this? The answer, of course, is that I'm getting rather muddled, vague and incoherent. I can but hope that in demonstrating the struggle against language, I'm demonstrating that demonstrating avoids the problems of struggling against language.

Maybe that, then, is the key. Show, rather than tell. I dunno, I've kinda lost the plot now. Too much language game.

Anyway, the point is this: if you view the Bible as a kind of Code, a set of symbols you can manipulate to get answers out of it, then all you're going to get is a human construction. Even if you think of it as divinely inspired, if in practice the use you make of it is as a manual, it's just a thing.

If the bible has value, it's in its demonstrative character. The Example is what matters, because even if laws shift with the seas of language, the example remains as clear as day.

PaulR : in a rather long way that sounds a bit along the same lines as 2MP and myself re : example. Words are not enough. It is perhaps the life lived, the example set, the congruence between word/action/presence/motivation/agenda.
For me, evangelicals do not present an example I would aspire to follow. For me, their words are empty of the true fullness of love of knowing God but instead come from fear - and so great is that fear they feel the need to persuade others to do as they do, to believe what they believe and I realise they feel this is in other people's best interest - even though it is not in reality. I have met people who have left the evangelical tradition and I recall how all of them talked about the woundedness they experienced through that tradition and the healing that was required after leaving that tradition. Hopefully, more will awaken to the harm that it does to them, their families and those they endeavour to convert or persuade to join their belief system.

Jonathan (59):

Some of the points you make here have been well answered by Eunice, whose difficulty with some forms of negative Christian behaviour I can well understand.

I want to pick up on this question, though. You ask: “Are all routines or rituals bad? No, of course not, but I was specifically referring to those used as a form of indoctrination.

Let us be clear what religious indoctrination is. It is essentially promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the ‘truth' (as you did in your posting). It aims to ensure that the indoctrinated person does not question or critically examine the doctrine they have inculcated. The NI RE syllabus is a good example. It focus almost exclusively on Christianity, yet it is the only subject in which children directly learn about philosophies of life. How unfair to the child is that? RE should be replaced by Philosophy, which include both religious and secular worldviews.

Other examples of religious indoctrination include subjecting children to routines such as reciting the catechism or periodical singing which serves to cause euphoria and suggestibility, and to initiation rituals such as confirmation at impressionable ages before they are able critically to assess the event.

Love bombing preys on the credulity and need for affection of the young. 'Happy clappy', holding hands, hugging each other and ‘bonding’, mixed with the preaching of a charismatic leader, are all used to tie the person to membership and participation in the group.

The use of incense and candles, chants, prayers, recitations of rosaries, masses, saints, miracles, the wearing of medals, visits to shrines and a whole plethora of mumbo jumbo are all designed, at least in part to weaken resistance and increase suggestibility.

Frankly, much of this is child abuse of the worst kind. It is the opposite of leading the child's mind out to a critical awareness and scrutiny of ALL ideologies, philosophies and ways of life.

2MP, couple of quick thoughts:

"But their concerns are not new, church history is full of communities of Christians exploring faith and action and community."

Sure. Such is an ongoing discussion. And I'm rather skeptical about the role of Community, if one thinks of it as an enclosed group. Perhaps a more interesting notion is Multitude. More can be done being out among the throng than stuck behind a closed door. Engaging in a dialectic with Christianity more broadly is far more productive than drawing yet another line between Us and Them.

"But that is a caricature, a very popular and sincerely believed one, but a caricature none the less."

Well, perhaps. Dramatic flourish again. Apologies. But the use of the letter of scripture to justify political point-scoring, which most assuredly is not just caricature, is still a sore nerve; perhaps because, in fact, it serves as a reminder that the twisting of words happens so easily.

I hope you don't mind, but I'll be getting off my pedestal here. It's been good to air some of that out, and your comments and criticisms are useful, but I think the quality of my representation is diminishing somewhat.

BrianMcC *Love bombing preys on the credulity and need for affection of the young. 'Happy clappy', holding hands, hugging each other and ‘bonding’, mixed with the preaching of a charismatic leader, are all used to tie the person to membership and participation in the group. *

I hadn't heard the phrase 'love bombing' before! Then when I read what it is - well ....it is far from love, as you also recognise.

Eunice...The Bible 'is' the word of God.
You have failed to tell me what you use as your source of supposed enlightenment.
You are right in saying that God is a God of love...but He is also a God of justice and he punishes sin.
The chaos and disorder in the world reflects the sin of mankind.
The only thing that man loves is himself...he craves all sorts of things in a search to satisfy himself...power...money...sex.
Amazingly enough, God still loves mankind, that's why he punished Jesus on the cross instead of us.
For those who trust Jesus as their Saviour there is salvation but for those who don't there is judgement.

I just did some research on the GOD Channel and to be honest I am amazed at what they show.

The show was by a guy called Creflo Dollar (apt name I think) on the Creflo Dollar Ministries.

He spent 20 minutes explaining that depression is caused by not thinking about god the right way and to cure it you need to think about god in the right way, talk to your depression and keep saying (in a loud voice in the bathroom for some reason) "I have faith in god !!!".

He also explained that if you quote scripture at your pain you would confuse it and it would run away and you replace your physical pain with the scriptural words so it could not return.

He had a 4 step plan to curing depression. He only had time to tell us three of them but fortunately the whole set is available on CD for a "Love Gift" and for another "Love Gift" of at least $65 we could also learn how to combat stress through reading the bible. He also had time to mention some of his books, presumably also available for a "Love Gift".

Evangelism at its best. What he has basically done is steal the ideas from positive thinking guru's and dressed them up in an evangelical belief. The difference is that few positive thinking gurus would try to meddle in such serious areas as depression and pain management which are difficult enough for psychologists and doctors to treat.

My question is this, is this type of evangelism a good thing or not, how close is it to the teachings of christ, and is it a positive image of the church to non believers?.

Dave

The answers to your questions:

Not.

Not at all.

No.


However, like John said, it's a free country and we should all use our brains.

Responses to lots of people in this post:
Eunice, John Wright, PaulR, brianmcclinton, Brian Thomas and Dave.

@Eunice (79)

I don't think you're using the word 'Christ' in any recognised form here. Christ is simply the Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah, which means 'anointed one'. The role of Messiah is laid out in the Old Testament and finds its fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. To talk about about Christ in another way is to give the word an entirely different meaning - to the extent that you'd be better off using another word. It's a bit like me saying that I ride a bike to work, then explaining that it's an enclosed petrol-driven vehicle with four wheels. As for bringing in Buddha, in what way does Christ's death on behalf of sinners embody any of Buddha's teachings? Take for example the gospel of Mark. It keeps referring to Jesus being on the way to Jerusalem, on the way to the cross. The crucial turning point comes in Mark 8 where Peter finally identifies Jesus as the Christ and in response Jesus goes on to teach the disciples that he must be rejected, killed and rise again. It's the point in Mark's gospel where everything changes and it all hinges on the mission of the Christ being revealed as one of death and resurrection. Later in Mark 10:45 Jesus says that his mission is to serve by giving his life as a ransom for many. I don't see where Buddha comes into any of that.

I don't think you've understood Jesus correctly with regard to equality and uniqueness either. Just because he said that the disciples would see and do many wonders similar to what he did doesn't mean that they would be the same as him in other ways. We are not the sum of our actions. Even if we were, doing some actions the same as another person isn't the same as doing all actions the same. For instance in John's gospel Jesus says that he is the way to the Father, that in him people can see the Father. Not in anyone else, just in him. That's a claim to uniqueness surely? John's prologue where the language about light that you love is most concentrated makes his uniqueness pretty clear. He's describing a momentous, special event and calls Jesus the One and Only, who came from the Father. He's not a son of god, but the Son of God.

Let me put it this way Eunice: have you ever seen God? Have you stood at the Father's side? Do you plan on rising from the dead?


@John Wright (80)

Why should truth be decided by popular consensus? Shouldn't the worth of evidence be more important in weighing truth that the number of people who believe?


@PaulR (83)

I realise that I probably come across a little blunt at times in the way I say things, so I'm thankful that you're engaging so diligently in discussion here. Looks like we can agree on what the core issues are, which is great.

Regarding language, I can't help but feel a sense of irony. I detect a great eagerness in what you write to not limit God or put him in a box. That's a fairly common element in much emerging/ent thinking as I understand it and something we sometimes lack in more institutional churches. However, aren't you limiting God's ability to communicate? We both agree that he can reliably inform humanity of himself. Couldn't he also guide people by the Spirit so that what they record is reliable? Okay, language is a finite, limited construct that is incapable of fully expressing the infinite, but within its limitations it can still say things that are reliably true. It can't comprehensively describe God or his acts, but it can describe sufficiently and adequately for the purpose of bringing people to saving faith and showing them how to live a life of discipleship (with the Spirit regenerating and sanctifying, as well as illuminating). The Bible records times when God speaks to people - isn't that an indication that he finds value and adequate reliability in language? Wasn't Jesus quite happy to teach with words? I don't see where any twist of logic is required for words to handle what we need to know about God.

I must confess that I'm confused about your distinction between using the Bible as a manual and following it as 'The Example'. At the end of the day, don't both involve reading words and taking meaning from them? I'm not sure how your treatment of language lends itself better to treating the Bible as The Example rather than a manual. How does the Bible function as any sort of example if you're confused about the language?

Not that I really get the manual issue itself. Again, it sounds like a caricature of what goes wrong with some Christians, but isn't really encouraged by the kinds of churches I've spoken of. Again coming from a Presbyterian perspective, I can't think of anything in the PCI Code, the Westminster Standards, the writings of John Calvin etc. that would encourage anyone to see the Bible simply as a manual. Preachers might occasionally use that as an illustration, but illustrations are fairly limited things and you can't take too much from them. If someone says that the Bible is like a manual, I wouldn't assume that they mean it is nothing but a manual or even primarily a manual, but rather that we can understand some of the functions of the Bible if we know what manuals are for i.e. the Bible has something to say about how people were designed to function.


@brianmcclinton (85)

Isn't your ritual answer somewhat circular?
You say: indoctrination involves engagement in routines and rituals
I ask: are all routines and rituals bad [i.e. how do we distinguish which are indoctrination]
You say: those used as a form of indoctrination are bad

'Let us be clear what religious indoctrination is. It is essentially promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the ‘truth''

Promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful - don't see what is bad about this in of itself. Repeating a fact by itself isn't indoctrination, so I'm assuming this isn't the core issue.

without allowing access to other ideas - this seems like more of an issue. Are you distinguishing here between allowing someone access to other ideas without actually putting them foreword, and actively presenting someone with a range of options?

and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the 'truth' - how do you determine what is justified? Who tells a parent what they are justified in presenting as the truth?

To be honest, I wish there was more catechising of children so that they would grow up better educated about the Christian faith. Catechisms aren't designed as a tool for brainwashing, they're a method of teaching. If people are saying things simply because they've learned a response rather than because they sincerely believe them, then that's of limited vale and I would hope that any minister/you worker etc. would impress that upon people. And if children enjoy singing praises to God, then that's great too. They're not being encouraged to sing so that euphoria will prevent them from singing, which is a crucial difference. As for confirmation, that doesn't happen until teenage years by which point people need to start being accountable for their decisions. Every minister I've ever known has impressed upon young people the need for confirmation to be a personal decision of faith rather than a blind ritual or peer pressure issue.

A lot of other stuff you mention I'm interested in addressing because it's largely a part of other religious traditions.

You're also rather hyperbolic with regard to 'child abuse of the worst kind.' I'm pretty sure that we've read about that in other threads in the past few months and comparing catechising to paedophilia just shows an utter lack of perspective.


@Brian Thomas (88)

Amen.


@Dave (89)

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the God channel is evangelism at its worst and it's a sad indictment of the level of discernment many people have that it's so big.

Brian T: it will hardly surprise you - but I totally disagree with you!
*The only thing that man loves is himself...he craves all sorts of things in a search to satisfy himself...power...money...sex.*
Searching for all of these things are borne out of our lovelessness not self-love. WIth true self-love, knowing that you are love - you do not need any of these things for true love is needless, it just is, and because it does not need it just serves. The type of self-love you are referring to is not true self-love, but instead comes from the emptiness inside, the lack of true love, that we then seek outer things to fill that hole, that emptiness, that lovelessness. It is our lovelessness (in your terminology sin) that causes the harm and chaos in the world and feeds man's inhumanity to man. However, this lovelessness is not punished by God, far from it. It has consequences for us due to the laws of cause and effect - and so we suffer the consequences of our own lovelessness over aeons. All of this is always working towards healing and towards awakening us to our true nature. And all of the time we are held in the utmost love by God. God did not punish Jesus (he was killed by men) and God does not judge (love cannot be love if it judges) and we save ourselves by living according to the ways of love. These are not empty words but based on my experience. Re my sources - I have read widely in different traditions and have understandings based on Ageless Wisdom teachings and esoteric philosophy (esoteric meaning coming from within) - where the emphasis is coming to know truth for oneself by one's own inner heart and putting the teachings into practice. Much of my understanding is informed by my lived experience.

Jonathan:
I know some of my understandings are very different to how they are in traditional Christianity - but understandings evolve as man has evolved. Medicine/science etc is not the same today as it was 2000 yrs ago and neither are the spiritual understandings. That does not mean truth has changed - just that our ability to understand Truth has changed as we have evolved and it will continue to do so. My understanding of Christ is based on the energetic understanding of what Christ is. We come from very different perspectives and understandings of what the bible is and is not, who Jesus is, who we are, what sin is and who God is and those 2 different understandings will never agree. I have perspectives and understandings that encompass more than the bible and are informed by my own lived experience. At the same time I respect your right to continue down whatever path works for you - I know that your path does not work for me and I have a path that does work for me and has transformed my life and myself and continues to do so.

*For instance in John's gospel Jesus says that he is the way to the Father, that in him people can see the Father. Not in anyone else, just in him. That's a claim to uniqueness surely?*
The kingdom of God is within each person -it is possible to see God in each person (although we have all been very good at keeping it covered!) In his day - Jesus would have embodied the love of God more than any other person so he may have appeared to be unique, to be 'the one' at that time - but this is something that we can all do if we make choices according to love.

So you say *Let me put it this way Eunice: have you ever seen God? Have you stood at the Father's side? Do you plan on rising from the dead?*
I see God every day, God is with me every day and my body will not rise from the dead (and to my understanding neither did Jesus body) but my spirit/soul will continue and my spirit will reincarnate into another body on my return journey to God/to soul - and it is my choices that influence that. For me the spiritual journey is the return of the human spirit to the one soul that it separated from.
I have written some simple verses that convey some of my journey and one of them called 'Awakening to Union' would convey the answers to your questions perhaps better than I have here.....but I can't put it on the blog at the moment! :-)

To all those who are talking about God and Jesus and quoting from the bible;

If someone was to approach you and begin to try to evangelise, but instead of using those terms mentioned, they used terms like 'Odin', 'Zeus', 'Persus' and 'magic' and quoted from the Nibelungenlied or the Odessey, you would most probably consider them misguided at best, crazy at worse.

What makes your religion, your terms and beliefs any more acceptable to preach about?

To someone like me, they're -exactly- the same. They all claim divine authority, they all insist on faith for that first initial step of acceptance and they're all just as implausible.

Jonathan Boyd,
Unfortunately this is the face of the evangelical protestant church which most people recognise and there are a lot of non discerning people filling up their megachurches and buying their products. Indulgences they used to be called I think.

They use techniques gleaned from the psychology of behaviour modification and double glazing salesmen to preach their ideas and sell their products. In marketing terms it is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). For people who are vulnerable these are hard to resist. They are designed to bypass discernment.

Why does the rest of the christian church not disown them if they believe they are not acting as true christians or are "evangelism at its worst". Seems to me that the nutters are ruling the asylum.

Christians and non christians are perfectly entitled to have reasoned debate, and disagree with each other, and believe what they like, but this is not reasoned debate This is brainwashing and manipulation in order to make certain people rich and powerful. The god and christ I learned about in school are just a cynical tool of this form of christianity.

In NI the same techniques are used, albeit I think with better intentions (however misguided), that does not excuse their use or excuse evangelicals from the guilt of the results of their actions. Homophobia is worse in NI as a direct result of the preaching of the church of which evangelicals are the loudest voice. Suicide rates in NI are higher, particularly amongst young men, due in significant part to unresolved sexual orientation issues between what the family and church believe and teach and the inner fixed orientation of the victim. That is not the fault of the homosexual who has to suffer it, it is the fault of the church which obsessively preaches hatred, prejudice and bigotry. I understand you say that it is your god who says these things, that just makes him prejudiced and bigoted. It also makes him a sadist to create people who are under death sentence from the moment they first are attracted to someone. Good role model !!!

Several times on this thread it has been said that people should make their own decisions about what they are being told and take responsibility for it. Take religion out of it, do you believe that all victims of conmen are simply stupid or that the con men are actually good at understanding how to fool people. If you believe the former why have criminal penalties for conmen if they share no part in the guilt it is the victims own fault.

What if it was another religion converting large parts of the protestant faith, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, its their own fault for believing it. If they create a culture of hate against you will you say awwh bless, they are just not very discerning. If they close your church down as an abomination against their lord and bring in the death penalty for your worship. If they only teach their faith in schools, compulsorily to all children and all other faiths are airbrushed out will you say tut tut !!, or maybe you will already be one of them or dead if you cannot be discreet about your beliefs.

You might think, wow that's a bit of a stretch but from where I sit this is the natural progression evangelical christians would follow if they had the chance. The template is in Africa, they go in, radicalise the population and when things become too extreme they are nowhere to be seen. They don't really condemn the extremes and find ways to excuse it or some biblical references which support it.

I have heard an American Evangelist say that the death penalty for gays in Uganda may seem a bit extreme, but homosexuality is an abomination so we may have to accept that bit (death penalty) in order to have the rest of the laws to criminalise homosexuality and its supporters in order to wipe it (homosexuals) out.

Not very loving towards sinners, and not very understanding of Human Rights.

In answer to this question

'What makes your religion, your terms and beliefs any more acceptable to preach about?'

The answer to that is...because Jesus Christ rose from the dead....He is alive!


Eunice..yet again I would ask where you get your attain all of this false teaching...it is most definetely wrong!

@Dave (94)

'Unfortunately this is the face of the evangelical protestant church which most people recognise'

Really? How many people actually watch the God channel?

'there are a lot of non discerning people filling up their megachurches and buying their products'

Sadly yes.

'Why does the rest of the christian church not disown them if they believe they are not acting as true christians or are "evangelism at its worst"'

They frequently are disowned. Take somebody like Joel Osteen and you'll find plenty of negative commentary about him, his church and his methods.

'Seems to me that the nutters are ruling the asylum.'

Who is running what? Let's take the Norther Ireland context - what churches are being run by God channel nutters? I can see Whitewell being put in that category, but it's an independent church that a lot of mainline churches would have reservations about. Certainly within PCI I hear far more criticism of altar call methods than commendation.

'Christians and non christians are perfectly entitled to have reasoned debate, and disagree with each other, and believe what they like, but this is not reasoned debate This is brainwashing and manipulation in order to make certain people rich and powerful.'

I agree that many of the televangelists try to brainwash people or swindle them out of money and I'm appalled at it. I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that point.

'In NI the same techniques are used, albeit I think with better intentions (however misguided)'

Where, when, how, by whom?

'Homophobia is worse in NI as a direct result of the preaching of the church of which evangelicals are the loudest voice. Suicide rates in NI are higher, particularly amongst young men, due in significant part to unresolved sexual orientation issues between what the family and church believe and teach and the inner fixed orientation of the victim.'

Evidence?

'That is not the fault of the homosexual who has to suffer it, it is the fault of the church which obsessively preaches hatred, prejudice and bigotry.'

If I preach that adultery is wrong, does that make be bigoted against adulterers? Is it possible to see an action as immoral without hating the people who commit those acts. Put another way, you say that the kind of evangelism that evangelicals do is wrong and that we preach wrong things. Does that make you a bigot against evangelicals?

'It also makes him a sadist to create people who are under death sentence from the moment they first are attracted to someone. Good role model !!!'

Without receiving gar from Jesus Christ, everyone has a death sentence over them. And whatever they've done wrong, anyone can be forgiven and receive eternal life instead. Homosexual activity isn't any more special than say adultery. Neither is it any more of a temptation than heterosexual fornication, nor or homosexuals lesser beings with lower will power.

'Take religion out of it, do you believe that all victims of conmen are simply stupid or that the con men are actually good at understanding how to fool people.'

I think that con men are good at fooling people, but I don't think that evangelists are necessarily con men or that they use the same methods.

'What if it was another religion converting large parts of the protestant faith, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, its their own fault for believing it.'

My point was that by the time people are teenagers they should have some ability to make decisions for themselves, therefore they have a degree of accountability for their actions. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here or what parallel it has with the situation here in NI.

'You might think, wow that's a bit of a stretch but from where I sit this is the natural progression evangelical christians would follow if they had the chance.'

Well why don't you just go ahead and make that case, because I don't see the evidence for it. There are some evangelicals who are all for legislating biblical morality, but that isn't the defining feature of evangelicalism and plenty would take an entirely different view. Being in favour of evangelism is not equivalent to wanting to legislate biblical morality.

'They don't really condemn the extremes and find ways to excuse it or some biblical references which support it.'

That's all very vague and nebulous.

'I have heard an American Evangelist say that the death penalty for gays in Uganda may seem a bit extreme, but homosexuality is an abomination so we may have to accept that bit (death penalty) in order to have the rest of the laws to criminalise homosexuality and its supporters in order to wipe it (homosexuals) out.

Not very loving towards sinners, and not very understanding of Human Rights.'

What's your point? That some evangelicals are Bad People? What a surprise, so are some Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and so on. What is its relevance to the issue of evangelism?

@Eunice (92)

We're not simply talking about different understandings here which can 'evolve'. We're talking about simple straightforward definitions. And not all understandings evolve. Some are actually pretty reliable. We're not going to discover in a hundred years that gravity actually pushes things apart and it's actually an electro-static force that holds us onto the earth.

What do you mean by an energetic understanding of Christ? What does 'an energetic understanding' have to do with the Judaeo-Christian concept of Messiah? Why do you insist on using terms with fairly well established meanings and imparting them with completely new meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a different term?

You say that your understanding encompasses more than the Bible, but I honest don't see how it includes the Bible to begin with, other than borrowing some terms.

How can Jesus be unique if we can all be like him? That's nonsensical. How can he be the embodiment of what you call love when he did things that you call unloving? I still don't understand why you keep talking about Jesus as if he believed the same thing you do when he patently didn't and acted in ways that illustrate a totally different understanding of love.

If you've seen God, then what does he look like? How do you know God is with you? Why do you believe in reincarnation when Jesus spoke of resurrection? Do you think Jesus was wrong?

@Natman (93)

The placing of Christianity's events within real history makes it rather different to mythologies. There are fundamentally different claims being made and different evidence offered.

As for what makes it acceptable to preach about, I think that everyone, including anyone who thinks that Odin is real, should be free to evangelise, so I don't think that my beliefs are any more acceptable in that sense.

Jonathan (#97),

I think Greek and Norse mythologies have as much bearing on 'real' history as the Abrahamic mythology. A good example is that our days of the week are based on Norse and Greek gods.

The evidence is identical - a collection of books, written a long time ago by many different authors, based on oral traditions and re-interpreted over the ages.

We could extend this discussion to include the Hindu pantheon if you wish, they still have a lot modern believers if that is a pre-requistite to be counted as an acceptable belief system. Christianity has an advantage in the Western world due to it's integration over the years with politics and the ruthless and determined suppression of other rivals in the past 1800 years. However, it doesn't make its fundamental beliefs any more plausible than the other religions in the world.

Jonathan: to my understanding Christ is not the person that was Jesus - some people use the terminology of Christ consciousness. A consciousness that each person can develop/embody. I have understandings at the level of energy as to my understanding ultimately everything is energy. And Christ is the love and light of the soul and this can be embodied by each person. In a way, each person could be a messiah, has the potential to be a messiah by embodying the CHrist - and it is our own choices that result in this not being a favourite of God. I am not alone in my understanding of Christ - many CHristians also differentiate between Jesus the person and the CHrist and recognise it is the journey for each person to be or become Christ - to embody the love of God.

We are all unique and we are all the same - one of the paradoxes of life! We are each a unique expression of the divine, but our core essence is pure love and this is the same in each person. I have explained somewhere else how I see Jesus and why I don't necessarily agree with all that he is reported to have said due to the bible being a book written by men many yrs after his death and who did not live as he lived. Resurrection for me is referring to the spirit - that is eternal, not the body which is mortal. There were apparently references i n the bible to reincarnation that were removed at the council of NIcea in order for the church to have power over people - on the theory that if people knew they reincarnated the church could not control/have power over them ie. no threat of hell or damnation possible. There remain a few references that can still be interpreted as supporting reincarnation. So for me Jesus knew about reincarnation.

'The kingdom of God is within' - for me this is within the inner heart of every person. Thus it is impossible for us to be separated from God in-truth. However, we each live as if we are separated from God when we make choices that are not coming from the pure love of the inner heart and we all do this every day. So for me, God/love is with each person - whether they know it or not or call it God or not - though they may not be connected to God/expressing from that place. God for me can be seen/felt in many places (feeling is a better arbiter of truth than seeing in my understanding) - in the smiling eyes of another, in the joy and laughter of a child or an adult, in playfulness, in the beauty of nature, the magic of God can be seen in every day life by synchronicities and the flow of harmony, in the gentle loving touch of another, in the sheer joy of BEING, being alive, being present, being joyful, being still, being love - without needing anything outside of oneself. For me God is a presence that can be felt and known and that is pure love and joy that I know does not judge and does not condemn - those are human attributes not divine.

Jonathan:

I really find it tiresome trying to unravel your misrepresentations and contortions. Here is just one example of the faulty reasoning with which your posts on evangelism and justice are riddled.

In post 85, you write:

“You say: indoctrination involves engagement in routines and rituals
I ask: are all routines and rituals bad [i.e. how do we distinguish which are indoctrination]
You say: those used as a form of indoctrination are bad”.

Now, I didn’t imply that indoctrination ONLY involves engagement in routines and rituals or that engagement in routines and rituals is ONLY about indoctrination. That’s your twist on it. There are many methods of indoctrination, some of which I have outlined. The use of routines and rituals are examples. If you bother to consult any book on brainwashing, you will see that this is so. Read ‘Battle for the Mind’ by William Sargant or ‘Techniques of Persuasion’ by JAC Brown, or any CIA manual for that matter. All of them discuss the use of routines and rituals as techniques of religious and political brainwashing. This is exactly what I said.


Of course, the MOTIVES of the use of routines and rituals is all important. Many rituals are not about indoctrination. I shave evey day; that is a ritual, but it is not designed to inculcate any belief uncritically in my brain. Life is full of such routines and rituals, and no one is suggesting that they are all about indoctrination. But certain types are used for that precise purpose and are often very effective.