I’m not much of an evangelist for my faith — at least not an evangelist in the traditional sense of “buttonhole a stranger, tell them your testimony, knock down their arguments, get ’em to declare Christ as their personal savior, and move on” kind of a thing. In fact, every single component of that description makes me shudder, for a variety of reasons …
… which Fred Clark lays out beautifully in his post, “Use Words If Necessary“. The title is part of a phrase attributed to St Francis of Assisi: Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.
I won’t “spoil” Fred’s words with a paraphrase, but I think a recap of his points about evangelization lay it out well:
- Evangelism is hospitality.
- Evangelism requires relationship.
- Listen.
- Your story is not an argument.
- Disciples, not merely converts.
To which I’d add the theme that underlies all of the above: Evangelism is genuine. If you’re doing it to make points, or count coup, or control others, or make people agree with you … you’re doing it wrong.
It’s a cliche, but if more Christians evangelized along the lines that Fred lays out, both Christians and evangelization would have a lot better rep — and be a lot more “successful.”
Now bear in mind, I don’t see evangelism in the same sort of apocalyptic terms as some Christians seem to. I don’t see becoming a Christian (however one defines the term) as essential to eternal joy. I certainly don’t think I have the whole faith/spirituality/morality thing anywhere near down pat myself, so presenting myself as some Oracular Font of Salvation, Whose Words Must Be Listened To Lest Perpetual Damnation and Torment Ensue would be somewhere between hubris and insanity.
But telling about my own story and beliefs to others with whom I’m in a relationship, and hearing theirs, and maybe clarifying to ourselves where we stand (and maybe where we might think of going to stand next)? That’s downright heavenly, whether its with actions or words.
Frankly, I find evangelism to be evidence of arrogance and disrespect toward the person being evangelized. When an evangelist approaches a target (I assume that the target does not share the evangelist’s beliefs), the evangelist believes that he or she knows the truth and that the target does not. The evangelist seems to assume that with respect to religious matters, the intellectual path he or she has followed is superior to the intellectual path the target has followed. The evangelist also seems to assume that the target can drop everything and spend time with the evangelist at a time of the evangelists’ choosing, and that the evangelist believes that the target is inferior to the evangelist in the sense that the target is unable to learn the truth without the evangelist’s assistance. I also believe that evangelism often has an element of the appeal to force. Historically there has been an appeal to force involved in attempts to convert others to Christianity (conversion by the sword), but even today there is a similar element involving social pressure, and, when two or more evangelists want to enter a target’s home and talk about religion, I think there’s an implicit threat in some evangelists’ methods. Finally, while there may be many evangelists who act from good intentions, it is my impression that many evangelists act from a selfish need to gratify their own egos. As a consequence, I believe that evangelism is morally wrong, and I find it difficult to respect those who practice it.
I think the majority of what you’re objecting to, Dave, is addressed in the post linked to and above. Evangelism of the sort you’re talking about — “I know The Truth, you don’t, so you need to listen to me right now, or else you’ll be in trouble, maybe from my friends, and certainly from God, plus it will hurt my feelings” — is just the sort of evangelism I (and, I’d gather, Fred) disapprove of as well.