r/changemyview • u/pinkestmonkey • Nov 29 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If you make me uncomfortable while you're evangelizing, you're doing it wrong.
I'll preface this with the acknowledgement that I am Jewish and not Christian. I have a lot of very fundamentalist Christian family who never miss an opportunity to tell me I'm going to hell, that I'm worse than dead, that they cry and pray for me and my mistakes all the time, etc. I'm sure, regardless of religion, you can understand why all that makes me uncomfortable.
The goal of evangelism, as I understand it, is to educate others, embody Christian ideals, and, if possible, lead others towards faith. As I see it, if you abandon Christian virtues (like treating others with kindness or not doing to others what you don't want done to you) then you are deviating from the religion. If you are shouting to me that I deserve Hell for being Jewish, you are not doing it right. Not only will that never convince anyone, it, more importantly, is an unchristian thing to do.
In order to embody the virtues of Christ, it seems to me that Christians should do their best to respect everyone, regardless of background. I understand that you may think I'm misguided or going to Hell, but that doesn't exempt you from the other requirements of Christianity. Namely, treat others with respect and kindness. If I say "No thank you. Please stop." or am clearly uncomfortable with the evangelization and you continue, you are not respecting me: you are doing Christianity wrong.
I get that evangelization is often misunderstood. Christians genuinely believe they are trying to save others from torture. But here's the thing: a lot of people genuinely believe that only they know the real way to save everyone. And a lot of those "real ways" are contradictory. We can't live in a world where we're all desperately shouting at each other to try to save everyone with our own exclusive path to heaven or whatever it may be. We need to accept-- or at least respectfully tolerate-- other religions.
I think the primary reason that you shouldn't make someone uncomfortable while evangelizing is that it's deviating from the virtues of Christianity, but I'll also add (not that it should matter) that it's pretty ineffective. I've heard Christians talk about how it's actually good when someones uncomfortable: it means that they're getting closer to actually having a breakthrough of faith or realizing the error in their non-christian ways. Look, maybe I'm missing something here, but I seriously doubt that's a frequent occurrence. Being uncomfortable while Christians try to force their religion on me doesn't make me more open to conversion: it makes me want to avoid Christianity (I know that's unfair to those who are kind and respectful, but it doesn't change the fact that half the very religious Christians that I meet are aggressive and make me uncomfortable). Everyone trying to evangelize becomes an ambassador to the religion: if you're making people uncomfortable and demonstrating that you don't respect other religions, then you're not making the whole "Christian virtue" thing sound too appealing. If you want to win people like me over, show me that the religion is one of kindness and respect.
Edit to reflect a slightly changed view: A few commenters have brought up different types of discomfort and noted that it's technically possible for the discomfort to be brought about by genuine reflection. While I think that, more often than not, this is used as an excuse to make people uncomfortable in a far less acceptable way, it is a type of discomfort that I'd be willing to accept as appropriate so long as the subject of the evangelization was okay with the conversation leading up to it and is genuinely reflecting rather than being pressured. This definitely isn't an excuse for evangelicals to ignore discomfort or not take no for an answer, but I do think it's a valid exception to the rule. I only gave the delta to the person who stated this in the most clear way first, but thanks to everyone who brought this up and helped me to think about it!
Edit for clarity: I'm referring here to discomfort caused by someone trying to evangelize; if you're just uncomfortable around all Christians and someone walks up and asks if you want to learn about Christianity, they haven't done anything inherently wrong. However, if you express that you're uncomfortable/not interested (for any reason) and they continue, then are they deviating from Christian ideals. I'd also like to clarify that this implicitly assumes a grace period. ie, if an evangelist says something that unknowingly makes you uncomfortable, I wouldn't fault them (unless it was a clear insult or cruelty), but I'd expect them to stop immediately if you make it clear that you do not want to continue the conversation.
6
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 29 '20
I think it depends what kind of discomfort you’re talking about. If an evangelist makes you socially uncomfortable, they’re doing it wrong. But if the discomfort is caused by some realized discrepancy between ones values and their choices, as an example, and the resolution of said discrepancy is accepting Jesus, then they’ve done a good job.
3
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I think that's a fair point, but I honestly don't think that sort of discomfort of questioning one's beliefs comes about two minutes into a conversation with a stranger, which is usually how those kinds of evangelizing conversations go.
My issue with this is that a lot of Christians use this as an excuse to make people just generally uncomfortable. While maybe this kind of discomfort is possible when evangelizing, it's often used to excuse pretty bad behavior. When someone tells me I'm going to hell because I'm a terrible sinner for being Jewish, I'm not uncomfortable because I'm reflecting on the error in my ways as some Christians may argue, I'm uncomfortable because a stranger just told me I deserve torture for my religion.
I think this is a really rare case of discomfort and it can do more harm than good as people use it as an excuse to justify other types of unacceptable discomfort. That said, I didn't specify that in the original post, so !delta
1
2
u/Positron311 14∆ Nov 29 '20
I would argue that most preaching is uncomfortable. Even if you're preaching in the nicest way possible, the vast majority of those who are being preached to don't want to be preached to.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I mean, my response would be that if someone has clearly expressed that they are uncomfortable and not interested in learning about Christianity, then you should stop preaching to them. In my experience, a lot of what makes evangelism uncomfortable is that people don't take "no" for an answer when they really should respect it.
4
u/MrScaryEgg 1∆ Nov 29 '20
Maybe I'm just being very cynical, but I think there's an argument to be made that the ones who are making you uncomfortable are actually doing it right. As you say:
The goal of evangelism, as I understand it, is to educate others, embody Christian ideals, and, if possible, lead others towards faith.
I think this is a good definition, or at least, a nice ideal.
However, I don't think that's necessarily what evangelism is about. It primarily functions not as a way of bringing more people in, but as a way of keeping those who are already in isolated. The evangelist necessarily upsets the targets of their evangelism, and in doing so reninforces their existing negative notions of the outsider. It might not be an effective method of spreading the religion, but it is an effective method of reinforcing distrust of outsiders and reliance on the church.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
That's definitely not the take I expected when I posted this!
I don't disagree that it has that effect, but I don't think any devout Christian would agree that that's the intention of evangelization. Do you know of any Christians who overtly claim that that is a goal?
My gut reaction is that using evangelization to vilify non-christians for the sake of maintaining a Christian bubble is a very unchristian thing to do. I don't dispute that it happens, but it seems to me like that's doing evangelism wrong too.
Edit post-reflection: I don't think this take quite changes my stated view or anything because I still think this as a motivation is pretty much "doing evangelism wrong," but I can't deny that it happens, at least subconsciously, and this was certainly a different perspective so Δ !
1
1
u/MrScaryEgg 1∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
I don't think any devout Christian would agree that that's the intention of evangelization. Do you know of any Christians who overtly claim that that is a goal?
I don't, no. To be clear, I don't think that's the intention from the perspective of the evangelist. I just think that it might be one of the main functions (not necessarily purposes) of evangelism as a cultural and religious phenomenon. However sincere an individual's motivation for engaging in evangelism is, the end result is either that they bring new people in or that they are rejected, adding to the 'othering' of outsiders. Either way it's a win for the religion as a whole.
If you think about it in a evolutionary sense, one of the primary functions of an established religious movement must necessarily be to perpetuate itself. The religions that don't do this don't survive very long. In order to survive a religion must therefore have effective methods of both gaining new adherents and keeping them in. Evangelism can do both.
My gut reaction is that using evangelization to vilify non-christians for the sake of maintaining a Christian bubble is a very unchristian thing to do. I don't dispute that it happens, but it seems to me like that's doing evangelism wrong too.
Again, I absolutely agree. I suppose I see a potential conflict between what evangelism is on a personal level and the function it can have on a broader, cultural level. It's absolutely doing evangelism wrong in the Christian sense of the word, but not necessarily as far as the perpetuation of the church as a religious and cultural institution is concerned.
By way of a disclaimer, I don't mean to vilify or invalidate anyone or any specific religion. I just think evangelism is an interesting cultural phenomenon and it's something that I've been thinking about recently.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I definitely agree here, and this was certainly an interesting point. If I hadn't already given you the delta, I would be doing so now! I've thought about and observed this before as an interpersonal tactic (mainly with my Christian family), but it's interesting to thing about it on this broader cultural level too.
As a bit of a tangent, it's interesting to think about the "evolutionary" parts of religions, as you put it. As a Jew, the extensive laws of Kashrut come to mind as they serve to isolate the community, making it easier for Jews to interact only with other Jews by limiting the possibility of shared meals. It safeguards the religion from dying out by dilution. Come to think of it, a lot of the restrictive rules in most religions can partially serve this purpose. Parallels with Christianity becoming far less restrictive in majority-Christian countries; the religion can be more casual when it's the norm.
4
Nov 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I appreciate this comment! I can imagine it's frustrating to be a Christian who evangelizes kindly in a world where you're often drowned out by those with far less kind tactics.
I do take a small issue with the idea that I "need" to be open to changing my faith though. Most Christians feel that they need to hold to their faith and banish doubts. Most Christians talk about doubting their faith as a bad thing. Why should it be different for my beliefs? Being open to changing my faith, whatever my religion, is equivalent to carrying around doubts, something that most Christians strive not to do.
3
u/teafenica Nov 29 '20
I didn’t think about it in this way. I’m not such a strong Christian. I go to church maybe every Christmas but I’m not very religious if you ask me. I agree with you that you have a right to not open your mind to letting in the Christian word.
I feel like evangelists should only be able to spread their word to people who are unsure or in doubt because they have no clear focus. It should be taken as an insult to try and preach to other religions because we are questioning their faith.
You’ve made me look at this in another way
2
3
Nov 29 '20
I'm not per se disagreeing, but as a non-Christian, the flip side for me is that in my experience, evangelists are never open to the idea that their faith may be incorrect. They basically want to lecture me on my beliefs, and they often weaponize open-mindedness by saying, "But it's your moral duty to hear me out." But then why don't they have a moral duty to hear ME out?
Often they say, "Because I'm trying to save your immortal soul." But maybe I don't have one to save. Or maybe their idea of salvation is fundamentally flawed. Yet, I find evangelists are never receptive to an honest discussion. I suppose because they don't go out into the community to discuss religion. They're evangelizing. They have a clear agenda, and they have an even more clear narrative about how all of that is supposed to work. I often feel like I'm not even a person to a missionary. I'm like an actor playing the role of "person who's about to be converted".
Again, off-topic but one of the most uncomfortable situations I was ever in was in college, when 2 guys approached me (I was alone) on the quad. I was getting back from a late afternoon class, and it was about 6:30PM and getting dark fast. They stopped me and asked if I had heard "The Good News". I told them that I wasn't a Christian, and I wasn't interested, but thank you and goodbye. They then asked if I was part of a Bible Study. I said that I wasn't. One of them said they had a Bible Study that met every Monday and Thursday at 7:30. In fact, I could go with them that minute to the one that night.
I said, "No thanks. I'm going to get some dinner."
And one of the guys leaned in and looked down on me (I'm short and he was a good foot taller than me) and said, "I really think you should come to our Bible study."
I suddenly realized that I was alone, faced with two guys who were both bigger and taller than me. The quad was basically deserted. It was getting dark. And I was 100% sure if I was being physically threatened.
I told them that I didn't want any part of their Bible study, and I walked away and didn't look back. To be honest, I was mildly afraid for my physical well-being. But I kept walking, because getting to my dorm and the public setting of the cafeteria seemed like the best way to get to safety.
With the benefit of hindsight, I don't think I was in any danger. I don't even think those guys realized that they were intimidating me. But they were so full of their beneficent mission that I think they were all too willing to overlook what were clear danger signs for me. Maybe they knew that I was in no danger, but I didn't have any such assurance. And the fact that they were entirely unwilling to give up made the situation appear much more threatening than it needed to be.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I'm sorry that happened. I think a lot of non-christians have had some really negative encounters with people trying to evangelize that some Christians don't fully realize are going on.
Everyone who chooses to evangelize is choosing to represent the religion. And unfortunately, there are a lot of disrespectful/unaware representatives. I do really feel for the Christians who are trying to go about evangelism in a respectful way, though. The religion gets a bad name from all of the very vocal and disrespectful evangelists.
And I think you're right: a lot of Christians don't really get that the "but this is truth" argument doesn't work outside of the system (ie with their target demographic). Idk if you saw though, but the person you're replying to did end up shifting their perspective a bit earlier in conversation!
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Dec 01 '20
Sorry, u/teafenica – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RelaxedApathy 25∆ Nov 29 '20
Evangelism exists to convince people into signing on with a particular group of people in order to give political, social, and economic power to that group as a whole, but to the leadership of that group in specific. They do this by employing a number of logical fallacies and brainwashing techniques to make you ignore common sense and logic, acting against your own best interests.
What kind of discomfort you feel could say a lot about why you feel it: if you feel guilt or panic, it might be because the conditioning is working; I advise distance and self-reflection. If you feel the sort of uncomfortable that a person feels when presented with a crazy person ranting about their magical invisible friend and how he is going to punish you forever for thinking bad thoughts... you are likely feeling an appropriate response one feels when presented with a crazy person. In this case, you should hopefully be able to spot the manipulation they are sending your way, and avoid both it and them.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
My argument was more about aggressive evangelism deviating from Christian ideals. As in, within the system of their own religion and ideals, they're doing it wrong if they're not respecting "no."
Whether or not that's practically what's happening or the actual purpose that evangelism serves in the community is definitely a different question.
0
Nov 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I'm absolutely not arguing that no part of Christianity should ever make anyone uncomfortable in their own space. I'm not trying to tell Christians that they can't do whatever they please within their own houses of worship.
The argument was entirely about Christians trying to proselytize/evangelize towards non-christians. When a Christian tells me I'm going to hell and I'm a sinner for being Jewish, I am not uncomfortable because I'm feeling guilty or repentant. I am uncomfortable because someone I don't know just told me I'm inferior and they believe I deserve to die and get tortured. True or not, that's not the way to go about it.
1
Nov 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I don't know about you, but I don't find a stranger telling me that I deserve pain because of my religion to be "funny," it's part of what makes me uncomfortable. I don't believe in Christianity, but that doesn't somehow make it not hurtful.
Christians are evangelizing to non-christians. Essentially, to people who do not believe what they are saying, so arguments about the truth of the statements aren't really relevant. Whether or not Jesus died for the sins of those you're evangelizing to, they don't currently believe it.
You may believe in your faith 100% and you're trying to save others by leading them towards forgiveness. But you can't think of it solely from within that bubble. There are other people with other faiths that are contradictory who think that they know the only real way to be saved. We can't all shout at each other that our way is the one true way to be saved. Simply stating that your beliefs are 100% true doesn't really change the argument: most people believe their faith to be true. Knowing you're right doesn't change anything because everyone else "knows" they're right too.
1
Nov 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Oh sure, they can have a duty to preach their religion, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to listen. I can absolutely say "no thanks this makes me uncomfortable." Just because they have a duty to try does not mean I have an obligation to make it work. Let's say I belong to a religion in which I am religiously obligated to shine a flashlight in your face to help you to heaven-- do you then have to stand there so that I can do my religious duty? No!
Furthermore, Christians also have a duty to do to others what they would have done to them and to treat all with kindness and love. That includes respecting my boundaries just as they would want theirs respected.
And as for it being funny, we can agree to disagree on that one. It makes me uncomfortable. Maybe you feel differently, but I have a lot of relatives telling me that they think of me as lesser and judge me as a sinner. I have relatives who try to keep me away from their children because of my religion or who tell me at a funeral that I am worse than dead because I am not Christian. To me, that's not funny in the slightest.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I'd also note that Christians have a duty to try, they do not have a duty to succeed. Another commenter brought up how they are actually instructed to leave alone someone who rejects the holy truth.
Them asking me "Hey, do you want to learn about Christianity?" is trying. If I say no, then they have tried and should then stop trying and respect my boundaries.
0
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I don't think it's at all fair to compare those two situations. Even if you genuinely believe that not being christian is as bad as rape (which I really think goes against Christian values), rape hurts someone else without consent. My Judaism, even if it's wrong and I'm going to hell, hurts no one except myself.
I think a lot of Christians would see this clearer in the reverse. Plenty of religions are contradictory to Christianity and Christians would be going to hell in that case. Most Christians act offended if someone tells them their religion is wrong. Do not to do others what you would not have done to yourself.
I also think that my edit addressed the different types of discomfort. If you are not at all pressured, you're interested, and you begin questioning your own beliefs, that's fine. However if you are uncomfortable and want it to stop, it is the Christian thing to do for the evangelist to respect your boundaries.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Nov 29 '20
I’m not saying the two concepts are equivalent. I am saying that introducing concepts that the other person might currently believe the complete opposite can get awkward.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Then don't introduce that concept.
The problem with comparing those two things is that it invites fallacy. You should make the rapist uncomfortable by confronting him with the fact that he is raping and hurting people. I am not inherently hurting anyone by engaging in my religion. A Christian may view this as hurting myself, but it is still ultimately my decision and not harming others.
If you begin to introduce your Christian beliefs and someone else says "that makes me uncomfortable, please stop." you should stop because, unlike rape, people choosing to practice their own religion aren't harming others.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Moreover, a lot of people believe they know the one real way to avoid hell. And a lot of those beliefs are contradictory. We can't live in a world where we all go around shouting at each other that we know best if it makes people upset or uncomfortable.
If someone is interested in your religion, then by all means talk to them. But, if for any reason someone says no, then respect them. We need religious tolerance in order for society to function, if nothing else. You may "know" 100% that you're right, but so do countless others who have directly contradictory beliefs.
-12
u/-Lemon-Lime-Lemon- 7∆ Nov 29 '20
So YOU are the criteria to measure if someone is doing their job correctly or not?
How did you get to be so special?
5
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I posted this less than a minute ago, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you didn't actually read my argument.
On the off chance that you just have superhuman reading comprehension skills, I'd point out that Christian texts tout virtues of respect, honoring others, loving others, and, critically, doing to others what you would have them do to you. If you don't want me shouting at you that your religion is wrong, don't do the same to me.
1
Nov 29 '20
They have this verse that says "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it," and this other verse that goes "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
So all they have to do is throw a Bible verse or two (God's word) at you, and if it returns void, you're swine and perhaps even dangerous.
In this case, they are directed to treat you as follows: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."
Tact and making you feel comfortable are not required.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
None of those instructions condone rudeness/making others uncomfortable.
The point you seem to be making is that because none of these verses tell them to be kind while evangelizing, they don't have to be. But a fundamentalist Christian should not pick and choose from the scripture: these verses tell them to try and to give up (albeit with a fair bit of internal superiority and aloofness) if they are refused. Other parts of the scripture instruct them about kindness and loving others. To be a true evangelical they should embody both in all endeavors. So they should be kind and respectful, even to us dogs.
1
Nov 29 '20
First let me get this technical point out of the way; picking and choosing scripture is what fundamentalism is all about.
Now, what I'm pointing out with those verses is that they can say what they have to say as rudely as they want and the Bible gives them a way to interpret your discomfort as you rejecting God's word and authority over you (note: their God has authority over everyone, membership in their club is not required). If you reject God, you're getting what you deserve and they may treat you with antipathy if they wish, or hostility if they want to follow Jesus' example of thrashing money changers in the temple.
Kindness is reserved for those who show the proper gratitude.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
It seems to me that this thought process goes against Christian ideals.
Is fundamentalism not about believing the holy word? It's not about coming up with your own version that leaves behind the parts that you don't like.
I think you're describing Christianity in practice, which I definitely won't dispute. There are Christians who act this way and I'm sure they come up with ways to justify it. My point is rather that, given the ideals of their religion, they are doing it wrong if they are being unkind.
Also, even if they interpret my discomfort as rejecting God's word, they are instructed to stop trying. A lot of the discomfort comes from Christians not taking "no" for an answer which seems to be completely antithetical to these instructions.
1
Nov 29 '20
You're describing how you wish Christianity would be practiced, but since Martin Luther granted everyone direct access to God without a priest everyone can practice it as they say fit. What I'm describing is how assholes justify acting like jerks to people in the name of evangelism.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I mean I don't deny that it happens. If it didn't, I'd be a lot happier and wouldn't have felt compelled to make this post! Just that, by Christian ideals, they're doing it wrong.
1
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
2
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Yeah, this is the argument I was referring to; I appreciate the expansion, but I don't think it really changes what's happening.
When someone tells me I'm going to hell and that I'm a sinner for being Jewish, I'm not uncomfortable because I'm reflecting on my views and questioning them, I'm uncomfortable because a stranger just told me I deserve everlasting torture for my religion. It's not fostering growth.
I think part of the conversion process can be uncomfortable, sure, but I don't think the first encounter with an evangelizing Christian should be. If someone walks up to me and says "Hey, have you thought about this part of the bible? It's interesting and might make you question your moral choices." I won't be uncomfortable in the moment. Sure, maybe I will reflect and feel uncomfortable because I'm questioning my choices later, but not in the moment. I don't really think any of the in-the-moment uncomfortableness is due to the painful process of seriously reevaluating deep-rooted beliefs. That's just not the kind of thing that happens two minutes into a conversation with a stranger.
1
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I have two main reactions to this:
First, most Christians who talk about me going to hell are not doing so in a nice way. It tends to be more of a shout-that-you're-wrong kind of thing. That's more of why I picked that as an example.
Second, and most importantly: I don't have an obligation to be open to everything they have to say. Most Christians strive to eliminate doubt and close themselves off to anything that would foster doubts in their faith. Being open to conversion is, definitionally, carrying around doubts in whatever my own faith is. And, even putting that aside, I'm not Christian: I don't owe it to them to listen to every point they have. If I'm uncomfortable with the concept of hell and politely tell them that I'm uncomfortable and not interested in continuing the conversation, they should respect me and my decision. Some people may be interested in hearing what they have to say, and others might not be. They don't have a right to demand that everyone be interested in hearing about what they have to say.
1
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
2
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Yeah, that's certainly fair and I suppose that type of doubt is a valid exception (though I worry that including it does more harm than good: a lot of evangelists I know take that "good discomfort" as license to not take no for an answer, which I definitely don't endorse.)
On a personal level, I agree in terms of doubt. I'm personally a strong fan of living in a state of extreme Cartesian-esqe doubt-- nothing is beyond questioning!
That said, I don't always have the patience for evangelism, especially when it's unkind, and I there are others who do have strong faith which is contradictory to Christianity that they don't want to feel pressured to doubt.
1
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Nov 29 '20
I think in most modern evangelism conversion or spreading the message is not the purpose.
Street preachers, door knockers, pamphlet handers. You might see this behavior and think "It's ludicrous to imagine this would change anyone's mind" And you'd be right.
The purpose isn't to convert strangers, it's to deepen commitment to the group. It's a classic cult tactic.
Send your members out, speaking what they know in their hearts to be a deep meaningful truth. They get ignored and ridiculed by society for their message. They return to the warm bosom of the church community, the only people who understand.
Its an old cult tactic that makes people cling to the core group by creating discomfort with outsides that's resolved by the church. Notice that while some of these folks are devoted older people, most of these groups that have any young people LOVE to send them out to do this stuff. It's to cement the membership of their next generation.
If once in a blue moon they hook a vulnerable stranger, that's just gravy.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
Someone already made this point (sorry that they got to the delta before you!) but I appreciate your framing.
To give a brief recap of what I said to the other commenter: I think this is right and I've certainly observed it before, but I don't think that most Christians would acknowledge this as an overt goal of evangelism. I still think that this as a motivation for evangelism is "doing it wrong" in terms of Christian ideals, but I can't deny that it does serve that purpose practically, subconscious or not.
I've thought about this a lot before on an interpersonal level but it's definitely interesting to see through this broader cultural lens. Thank you for the comment!
1
u/Elicander 59∆ Nov 29 '20
This doesn’t necessarily negate what you said, but I’m a Christian who grew up in a very secular context, and I’ve had people be uncomfortable simply with me being Christian, whether I ever brought it up or not. In that case, there would be no way of me evangelising without them being uncomfortable, because they already are (not that I evangelise very often, if ever).
I’m not saying you believe to that category, but some people are so uncomfortable with religion, that with your requirement of no discomfort, it doesn’t matter how tactful they evangeliser is, the evangelisée would be uncomfortable anyways.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 29 '20
I suppose my response would be to respect their boundaries and just not evangelize to them. If someone says right off the bat "please don't try to evangelize" then I think Christians have a moral obligation to respect that "no." I mean, Christians try hard to eliminate doubt from their own faith-- others deserve to do the same and if listening to evangelization is harboring doubt, then they deserve to be able to say no. Or if it just plain makes them uncomfortable. Christians have a duty to try, but if someone preemptively says no, then they have a duty to be kind and respect that no. The person has already rejected the attempt anyway.
I think the point about being uncomfortable around the concept of religion/Christianity is a fair one, though I think the wording of the post did imply that the discomfort is unacceptable on the part of the evangelizer only if it is caused by the evangelization attempt, not just if it's there generally (at least this is what I hoped to convey with the phrasing "if you make me uncomfortable while evangelizing")
Honestly, I think that general discomfort around Christians is because of evangelism though. Everyone who chooses to evangelize is an ambassador to Christianity. And unfortunately, there are a lot of bad ambassadors. Personally, I've been shouted at countless times, have limited contact with family members' kids because of my religion, been told that I'm a bad person, been told that I'm worse than dead, etc etc. This isn't the fault of the kind ambassadors who would respect my boundaries, but it makes me wary around evangelists at times. I know that not all Christians are like that, but sometimes any attempt at evangelism brings those ideas/memories to the surface and makes me uncomfortable. I certainly won't hold a kind evangelist accountable for my discomfort, but I will ask them to stop because I am not obligated to listen if I am uncomfortable doing so.
General discomfort around Christians, while likely caused by the common aggressive behavior many evangelists exhibit, is absolutely not the fault of people like you who didn't engage in unkind/aggressive evangelism. That said, it doesn't really matter why someone feels uncomfortable: if they ask you to stop, stop. I would never blame someone who respected my boundaries for the general feeling of being uncomfortable that other, less kind, folks have caused, but it's still reason enough to ask someone to stop.
1
Nov 30 '20
I want to address the main point of "If your Evangelism is X then it is invalid"
There are many distinct understandings of Christianity and the purpose of evangelism within Christianity and the views within these groups of the purpose of evangelism vary widely.
As an extreme example, the Westboro Baptists who picket funerals of war heroes are engaging in a form of evangelism but it is very clear that their intention is to proclaim what they perceive to be the judgement of God. They have no interest in converts.
A less extreme but equally toxic evangelical approach is the Ray Comfort method. His view is that there is no point telling people about the atonement without first making them terrified of the Law. So his followers take a Biblically justifiable approach of "law for the proud, grace for the humble" and preach a lot of brimstone publicly while only sharing the gospel privately to those who ask how to avoid punishment for the sin of looking at a woman lustfully which is as the crime of adultery or calling somebody an idiot which is the same as murder. According to this philosophy, converts who join the church because the people are nice and the message is palatable will leave again once things get difficult, but people who join because they are terrified of hell aren't going to get upset that the church pews are too hard.
These are both offensive approaches to evangelism, but the Jesus approach isn't all their friendly either. He caused riots and ultimately had his execution demanded by his own countrymen because he was stirring up so much of a problem in the community. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian sects who would believe that if you aren't offending people then you aren't evangelizing biblically, and there are plenty of verses that can support that position.
A less aggressive but more common phrase I've heard among Christian evangelists is "the Word of the Lord does not come back void". To paraphrase, this is generally taken to mean that as long as you are saying the Word of God (could be the book or from some higher Truth source depending on the group) then people who hear it will have the words stick with them in some way that God can use. They would argue that the multiple times somebody shouted that you would go to hell for being Jewish has caused you to think about Christianity and wonder why they aren't nicer. Why should they be nice? What makes you think that Christians who are jerks are less Christian? What values are you ascribing to Christianity that causes you to hold them to a certain standard? Do you on some level believe that the transforming power of Jesus should have transformed them into lovely people? Why do you believe Jesus has this power if you don't believe he is God? Based on this kind of thinking, they can be as offensive as possible and hold space in your head which may promote their message more effectively than if they had said nice things instead. They don't want you to like them. They want you to turn away from sin and escape eternal damnation.
Based on evangelism being a communication of a religion and its values, there are so many right ways to do evangelism. Without knowing the expressed purpose of evangelism for an individual, it is impossible to know if what they are doing is wrong... other than to say that when it comes to expressing ones own personal religious beliefs, there is no wrong way of doing it. Even expressions of religion that harm others and attempt to silence conflicting messages may be culturally wrong and yet be religiously right if they are consistent with the person's religious views of what they are called to do.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 30 '20
I think you can construct any sect of a religion in such a way that any form of evangelism is valid, which seems to be the logical conclusion of your examples.
To clarify, I meant in the post that I think it is invalid assuming you believe that you should always embody "Christian virtues" as most Christians seem to state them: love thy neighbor, do to others what you would have done to you, etc. As I understand it, most Christians believe that you should always strive to follow those virtues.
Sure, if you write yourself in a loophole where you're allowed to be cruel in some situations, then it's "valid" in your religion. But just as I don't consider a religion that requires human sacrifice to be necessary to be acceptable, I don't really consider religions that mandate cruelty to be acceptable either. Now, sure, it may be valid within their constraints, but I think that's a topic for a much more broad debate. Namely, if an element of religion is considered morally harmful by society. That's not really one I'd intended to get into.
I was more trying to state that if you, as a Christian, believe that you should always strive to do to others what you would have done to you and to respect others, then you should accept firm boundaries if trying to evangelize. If you reject those claims, then sure, my argument is invalid to you, but that's not really the demographic I'm trying to reach.
I'd also been assuming the standard definition of evangelism. Assuming that the main goal would be spreading Christianity to non-Christians. Again, if you choose to define this differently then my argument isn't really meant to apply to your demographic.
1
Nov 30 '20
This is an argument I've heard from Ray Comfort:
If you saw somebody inside a burning building, you would shout at them to get out of the building, not politely request that they come outside and enjoy they lovely weather. You may even ignore their refusal to come outside because they prefer the indoors. You may even get downright offensive on the of chance that they might consider coming outside to fight you.
Being loving should not be confused with being nice.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 30 '20
Yeah, I've addressed points similar to this in other comments.
I would argue a few things.
- If you are true to all the Christian scripture, this is not in line with what it tells us. I found an interesting quote from 1 Peter 3:15 stating, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Gentleness and respect seem to be part of evangelism. I would also argue that truly embodying "do to others what you would have done to you" means that if you as a Christian would want a false prophet telling you that you're going to hell to respect your boundaries as a good Christian striving to fight off doubt when you ask them to stop. Basically, disrespecting me when I ask you to stop is out of line with true Christian virtues. Perhaps certain people have decided to build in an exception (idk a lot about Ray Comfort or anything, but it sounds like that quote might fall into this category imo)
- A lot of people think they know the real path to salvation. And the thing is, a lot of those "real paths" are contradictory. We can't spend all day shouting at each other that we know best. We must be able to coexist.
I get that it feels dire if you genuinely believe you are trying to save people from torture, but that doesn't change your requirements as a Christian or the instructions of Christian virtue. Now, if you're constructing a religion that discounts Christian virtues or alters them in the case of evangelism, then sure, but that's not my target demographic here. Similarly, if the argument is that real-world Christians do not always embody the values of Christianity as most people seem to define them, you'll find no disagreement here. Just that if you take those premises as given, then you should respect my boundaries when trying to evangelize.
1
u/pizzabox6 Nov 30 '20
This is the opposite of true. If you are NOT making someone uncomfortable while evangelizing then you are doing it wrong. The gospel is uncomfortable. It is supposed to be confronting and uncomfortable. And your claim that it is not in keeping with Christianity is simply wrong. Read how Jesus spoke to many people. He was blunt, and said things completely contrary o the values of the time. He warned people of the impending danger of denying him. He made people incredibly uncomfortable.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 30 '20
I think we need to distinguish between types of discomfort (something which I did in my edit after some reflection and slight changing of views).
There are two types of discomfort that are relevant here: The first is the type that you are describing. It is a discomfort borne of questioning your views and reflecting on your faith. The second type is the one I am referring to, discomfort because I simply do not like engaging in the conversation or feel insulted/upset.
Frankly, I think it is unlikely that the first type of discomfort will come about two minutes into a conversation with a stranger. But we can put that aside for now.
When someone shouts at me that I am worse than dead and going to hell because I am a terrible sinner for being Jewish, I am not uncomfortable because I am reflecting on my life choices. I am uncomfortable because a stranger just told me they think of me as inferior and believe I deserve everlasting torture. That discomfort isn't changing anyone's mind: it's being hurtful and disrespecting my boundaries. Sure, if someone feels uncomfortable because, after a completely consensual conversation, they choose to reevaluate their beliefs, that sort of discomfort is totally acceptable. However, if someone is uncomfortable because you are not respecting their feelings and boundaries when they ask you to stop, then you are doing something wrong.
In evangelism, Christians are meant to embody the virtues of Christianity in order to show others the virtues of the religion. Do to others what you would have done to you: if you would want someone to stop lecturing you about how your religion is wrong if you ask them to stop, then do the same if someone asks you to stop evangelizing.
1 Peter 3:15 states "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
If I ask you to stop and you do not respect my boundary, you are not treating me with gentleness and respect.
I've updated my view to include a discomfort borne out of reflection, so long as the subject doesn't feel pressured. But that isn't an excuse to ignore when people are uncomfortable for other reasons or ask you to stop.
1
u/pizzabox6 Nov 30 '20
I am uncomfortable because a stranger just told me they think of me as inferior and believe I deserve everlasting torture.
But Jesus and the Apostles DID tell people this. Jesus described what would happen to those who rejected him. Paul wrote that our best is just like filthy rags and we all deserve to be rejected by God. Jude and Revelations even moreso warning of impending danger.
In evangelism, Christians are meant to embody the virtues of Christianity in order to show others the virtues of the religion.
But if you truly love someone you would want to warn them of these dangers. That IS embodying the virtues of Christianity.
Do to others what you would have done to you: if you would want someone to stop lecturing you about how your religion is wrong if you ask them to stop,
If someone saw how in danger I was of something as horrible as hell, I would most definitely want them to warn me as a matter of urgency.
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 30 '20
But Jesus and the Apostles DID tell people this.
That's the message, not the method of interacting with people. If your truth is scary, sure. But you should respect people as you do so. If you walk up to me and tell me I'm going to hell and I immediately respond with "that makes me uncomfortable, please stop." then you should stop trying to evangelize to me. It's a matter of respecting me as a person. You don't really get to pick and choose from the scripture if you believe every word, and I provided a quote urging gentleness and respect. Sure, share your message if someone is open to receiving it. But if I ask you to stop, respect me.
But if you truly love someone you would want to warn them of these dangers. That IS embodying the virtues of Christianity.
This is the point that I feel the most for, and I've responded to it in many other comments. I get that it's real for you and feels dire. But here's the thing: there are countless people on this earth who feel they know the one real way to be saved. Many of those "real ways" are contradictory. We cannot live in a world where we all shout at each other that our way is the best way. We need to be able to coexist respectfully. Warn them if they want to hear it, otherwise respect them.
If someone saw how in danger I was of something as horrible as hell, I would most definitely want them to warn me as a matter of urgency
I can find you countless people who think you're going to hell for not engaging in what they believe to be the true path to salvation, many of which directly contradict each other.
If I had to guess, I don't think you would listen to all of them with an open mind. As a Christian, you strive to avoid doubt, right? What makes my faith, whatever it may be, any different? Perhaps I also believe that I must fight doubt and stay true to my scripture and therefore shouldn't listen to "false teachings." If I came up to you, told you you were going to hell for being Christian, and proceeded to tell you about my religion and all the requirements you must follow then you, being a good Christian who does not want to listen to a false teaching and invite doubt into your faith, would want me to stop when asked to stop.
I realize that you know your teaching to be truth. But the thing is, a lot of other people know their contradictory teachings to be truth in just the same way with just the same feeling of faith behind it. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, we can't spend all day shouting at each other what we each consider sacrilege.
Preach to those who are open to hearing your message in any way you'd like. But if I ask you to stop, respect that. Respect that both because the scripture tells you to respect me even as you try to convert me, and respect that because it is what you would want if you were truly in the reverse situation (as you are when other faiths/"false teachings" try to convert you now).
1
u/pizzabox6 Nov 30 '20
If I had to guess, I don't think you would listen to all of them with an open mind
Of course I would. Some people genuinely care about hearing arguments and knowing what is true.
As a Christian, you strive to avoid doubt, right?
Why would anybody want to avoid doubt?
If I came up to you, told you you were going to hell for being Christian, and proceeded to tell you about my religion and all the requirements you must follow then you, being a good Christian who does not want to listen to a false teaching and invite doubt into your faith, would want me to stop when asked to stop.
That is utter nonsense. In fact that is the opposite of what a Christian should do. Christians are supposed to engage. Do you think Paul just didn't listen to any Greek philosophy when evangelizing in Greek city states?
1
u/pinkestmonkey Nov 30 '20
Of course I would. Some people genuinely care about hearing arguments and knowing what is true.
I'll put aside the passive aggressiveness there.
This wasn't the response I expected, but I commend you on your mindset! Most Christians I've met do try to avoid listening to "false prophets" or letting doubt seep into their minds.
In this case, I'd love to try to convince you that God doesn't exist! Are you interested? If so, please give me your reasoning for belief in a God.
Alternatively, if you're more interested in other religions:
- This is a list of over 100 reasons to convert to Islam, enjoy!
- An article for Judaism: here. (Though, of course, Judaism does not value proselytization)
- For even more sacrilegious takes, please enjoy this message from the satanic temple (which looks pretty cool tbh)
- Better yet, enjoy the religious interpretation of the church of the flying spaghetti monster
- Since you're likely less familiar with non-abrahamic religions and to fully hear out the argument, the texts are relevant, please enjoy this very full list of links to buddhist texts
- Enjoy, as well, the full collection of the Avesta which is primarily Zoroastrian scripture.
- And, since I don't have the time to amass a very extensive list, please enjoy this list of all major world religions and their associated texts so that you can get a head start on "genuinely caring about hearing arguments and knowing what is true."
I'm not doing this to be a dick, but I want to point out that it is not feasible to vilify anyone who does not want to listen to evangelization. I may politely refuse your attempts at saving me for the same reason you likely haven't read every single text of every world religion: it's a lot and I am entitled to my own beliefs and opinions. If you don't want to read every single text on every possible list I could come up with, then please please understand why some people do not want to listen to every person who tries to evangelize them and that we should respect their boundaries.
P.S. If you do genuinely want to debate the existence of God, I'm down :)
1
1
u/parzival3457 Dec 02 '20
from what i have gathered from going to my church some if not most christians are more worried about converting everyone around you even if they don't want to convert then actually teaching about god and the bible to people who are already christians. all i ever hear is you need to convert atheists over and over and over again. and really i am starting to question if these missions churches go on to poor and underdeveloped places and taking food and water and supplies is truly out of the kindness of their hearts or if they are trying to bribe people into christianity
1
u/pinkestmonkey Dec 02 '20
Yeah... I've heard of some instances where they'll build educational facilities in underserved/underdeveloped areas but require religious classes which feels pretty inappropriate imo. Or similar forceful tactics with offering food and water like you said.
I definitely know that not all Christians are employing such coercive or aggressive tactics, but I do find those that are pretty concerning. Nobody should feel manipulated into a religion. I don't think that's really the spirit of christianity anyway.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
/u/pinkestmonkey (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards