Is “evangelism” a dirty word?
The answer to that question depends upon both the definition of “evangelism” and who answers the question. “Evangelism,” in its most basic sense, denotes sharing the good news of God's love mediated through or manifested in Jesus of Nazareth.
The gospels instruct Christians to evangelize the world by making disciples of all people. Matthew 28:19-20 is perhaps the best known example of this teaching: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."
Analytically, the idea of a person wanting to share with others the relationship or concepts that infuse his/her life with meaning and purpose makes prima facie sense. Wanting others to enjoy the abundant life that others has is a very basic form of loving one’s neighbor.
The devil is in the details. Does the evangelist sharing his/her religion entail expecting the evangelized to express the relationship or concepts in the same metaphors or theological tenets? If so, that presupposes, at a minimum, the superiority of the evangelist’s beliefs to any possible understanding the evangelized may have. This inherently leads to both cultural arrogance (e.g., repeatedly seen in European and American evangelism efforts in Africa, Asia , and elsewhere) and the theological transformation of the living God into a dead idol (human language cannot describe God but at best points toward ultimate reality).
Ongoing conflicts at the United States Air Force Academy and at many other locations in the military provide numerous contemporary examples of both problems. Evangelical Christians adopt a “We know best” attitude that demeans non-evangelicals of all persuasions and frequently violates the Constitutional separation of religion and state. These evangelicals substitute a formulaic checklist for a living, dynamic, and personal relationship that will necessarily vary from individual to individual in terms of expression and structure.
A recent essay published in USA Today caught by attention because it describes the awakening of a prominent Christian evangelical pastor to these difficulties (Tom Krattenmaker, “How to sell Christianity? Ask an atheist,” June 28, 2010). The pastor, Jim Henderson, solved his struggle by consulting with atheists. Although that approach may seem counter-intuitive, Henderson
As a religious pluralist, I find this approach commonsensical. What I find refreshing is that non-religious pluralists have finally started to realize that traditional evangelism techniques and approaches are less than Christian.
Over the years, I’ve met a large number of people who became involved with Christianity for some period of time, then dropped out. I’ve also met a goodly number of people who have sought salvation (whatever that means) multiple times, hoping that they would eventually the deeper, more genuine experience of God they sought. Whether a person tries the Jesus way once or multiple times, when the experience proves less than transformative it suggests to me that the person really experienced something psychological, cultural, or social but not a truly transformative, life-giving spiritual experience.
True evangelism is not about numbers, not about conversion, and not about people becoming part of an institution. True evangelism is journey with another as he or she seeks to develop an awareness of the holy, what Christians call God, in her or his life. The companion on the journey may offer stories from her or his own journey, pass along the stories and wisdom of other spiritual travelers from one or more faith traditions, and share joys and pains, growth and struggles of the journey.
This video of a conversation between the Dalai Lama (a Buddhist monk) and Leonardo Boff (a Christian liberation theologian) graphically underscores what I'm attempting to say:
This video of a conversation between the Dalai Lama (a Buddhist monk) and Leonardo Boff (a Christian liberation theologian) graphically underscores what I'm attempting to say:
2 comments:
A reader sent me this comment:
The Dalai Lama/Boff video has a highly pragmatic flavor: it if works, it must be good. Or to use biblical language, the fruit of the Spirit can come from any tree, or the Tree of Life can grow anywhere. It sounds good until we come to the topic of life-after-death. There the religions splinter into many answers, seemingly irreconcilable, and the non-supernaturalists (unless I misunderstand them) by definition find the topic slippery if not pointless.
But it does make me wonder, how many Christians are adherents because they’ve decided -- perhaps subconsciously -- to follow Jesus because of “what’s in it for me?”, namely eternal life – and not just eternal life in a general sense, but eternal life for me specifically. In other words, is eternal life the objective, or is eternal life merely the by-product of a close relationship with God through Christ? I think it’s more of the latter, but evangelistic emphasis on salvation tends to say the former. That is, believe what I say or you’ll either be annihilated at death or confirmed to eternal punishment (or in the best case, a God-less eternity).
You raise a very interesting question about how many people are Christians because of what they hope to get out of the relationship. Psychologists and neuroscientists do not know whether anyone can act in a purely altruistic manner. Regardless, I suspect that many people convert to Christianity because of what they hope to receive; that the vast majority of Christians are Christian more by birth than anything else. With respect to the latter, an individual's level of participation in church is probably, at least in part, determined by benefits received in the present or expected in the future from that participation. Ideally, Christianity calls people to love God in response to God's love without any thought as to present or future benefits.
Post a Comment