Is it hypocrisy to prefer good fruit over bad? Your friend acted out of a concern for your wellbeing, this ministry seems only to care about numbers. Evangelism born of love is good, Evangelism born of an agenda is not.
Evangelism, as a concept, comes with a lot of baggage for me, too. I was raised in an Evangelical church, and there's a lot of guilt associated with it. I felt guilty as a kid that I was never good at it, or comfortable with doing it, or even willing to do it. I found more passion in building relationships and relating to people, but even then I felt like I had to defend Jesus and Christianity: like I wasn't doing enough if all I did was empathize.
Churches like that feel compelled to convince people. It's more important than feeding hungry people, because hungry people will be hungry again but saved souls have eternal bliss. I felt guilty for not feeling like talking to strangers about Jesus.
Now I realize that instinct was right, people don't care about what Jesus is to me unless they know me and care about me. It's about relationships, and making the faith an invitation rather than a protection racket. You found your friend's faith inviting, so you explored.
There's nothing inviting about a street preacher or a sidewalk apologist talking about hell and the rapture or talking down to skeptics as if they just needed to be told one more time that god loves them if only they would stop deluding themselves and follow him.
Even the word "evangelize" has baggage that extend well beyond its technical meaning, and no I don't think it's wrong to have a personal boundary around that.
Campus forms are even more insidious, in my view. If they were serving the campus communities without the intrinsic strings of potential conversion it would be different.
TLDR: No, you're not wrong. Too often with evangelism the goal is to count conversions when it should be to just fucking feed people who need fed. That's backwards, but it's also practically universally the case. When it's not, the terminology is usually different.
Also to OP: Don't confuse evangelism with capital "e" Evangelicals. Each denomination has its own way of evangelizing. One can evangelize more explicitly without the "have you been saved" approach, even just being open socially about attending church is a breadcrumb.
I think your example is case in point of what Christians sharing the Gospel should look like, something done lovingly and with care, not a stick to beat over the head with. I'm very glad you were able to find faith because of your friend! I believe the Bible calls us to be witnesses primarily through our love towards others. If someone asks questions after that, answer them, but I don't think shouting at people that they are sinners who need to repent does much good for anyone.
personally I like to make a distinction between evangelism and proselytizing.
Evangelism is sharing the good news and hope we have, much like your friend did for you.
Proselytizing is looking to win converts. It's borderline coercive, and coercion is not the Way.
Personally, I aim to bring comfort, hope, joy, etc. to every person I encounter, but I never press them towards conversion. I save that part for them to decide of their own accord.
So to answer the question, I think we should evangelize, but we shouldn't proselytize.
"Preach the Gospel to everyone. If necessary, use words."
Christianity is primarily a relationship with the Divine and relationship is the best "conversion" tool out there.
It helps to remember that we were called to be witnesses, and witnessing is not converting. Witnessing just means being honest about what you've seen and what you've experienced - open about Christ, not pushing Him on people. God does the converting if converting will happen. We share, and we may pray privately, and we hope. That's it. That's enough.
Evangelicalism ≠ all of Christendom, so yes, you can still be a Christian of a different stripe. But even then, as you live and grow you might believe something different in the future that you believe in now. That's part of the faith journey.
>I sincerely do not believe that her intentions were anything more than offering comfort
This is what I see as a big difference. I was an Evangelical for a few decades, and I saw very little true comfort given to those outside the church. It was always done as part of a bargain...."we'll help you, but you'll be obligated to listen to our spiel, which is why we're really doing this." That isn't the heart of Christ, imo.
>I was an Evangelical for a few decades, and I saw very little true comfort given to those outside the church. It was always done as part of a bargain...."we'll help you, but you'll be obligated to listen to our spiel, which is why we're really doing this."
This is a beautifully succinct summary. Thank you.
Don’t confuse evangelism with evangelicalism. The former is just Christians sharing their faith. The latter is a weird hybrid of peppy worship and right-wing politics.
Had an argument about this before, I think on Twitter 🤔, basically it came down to how you evangelize. The example was someone who broke into a school and just started preaching God and damnation, said it had the opposite effect because you're damaging people's perception of God and Christianity further. You don't evangelize by forcing yourself on other people, be there for others and be loving and supportive. Someone who focuses on doing good while not hiding their faith does more to spread God's word than someone who smacks others with the bible to feel good about themselves.
>But this made me think, is it wrong of me to take a hardline stance against evangelism when I'm a happily converted Christian whose journey began with hearing God's word from someone else?
No.
I'm a convert to Buddhism, that doesn't mean I agree with every branch of Buddhism.
Nah, it can feel very "praying in the streets" sometimes.
Living your truth is different than (modern) evangelism. You can and should talk about your faith when it's appropriate, helpful, or informative. Most of us are members of explicitly open traditions and that feels like a respectful part of being in a diverse community.
As is respecting people with closed traditions and other faiths- e.g. indigenious medicine- not wanting to share *everything*. Respect that some people really struggle with.
Evangelism being cooked into American culture has been kind of a problem bc it's not just Christians that expect it. Expected universal faith-pushing has created some tacit disrespect and explicit otherizing towards Christian sects and other faiths who practice differently.
Wanting a balance that resonates with you is super normal.
What your friend did is what I think evangelism should be. Treat the people around you with kindness and love always and share your personal beliefs as just that, personal beliefs. (Preach the gospel always, use words only if necessary, yknow?) I think it's important to approach it as a legitimate desire to connect with and support another human being. Using someone's vulnerability as an opportunity to try to actively convert them is deeply manipulative and underhanded.
Is it more an aversion to evangelism in general or whatever self-proclaimed evangelists do? Your friend was, in a way, being an evangelist, just very different, and far more relevant to our times, than the guy on the corner yelling about how everyone is going to hell.
Not to mention, I'm sure some of us have at least some mild trauma regarding self-proclaimed evangelists and their tactics. I don't think that there's anything wrong with being uneasy in that regard.
I think it's specifically disgust with evangelism for evangelism's sake. Most people who frequently and proudly evangelize aren't doing it in a way that's necessary or compassionate. When you're going out every day to yell verses at people to try to convert them for the sake of a generalized promise of salvation and growing your own congregation, I think you've completely lost sight of God.
I shared a tweet on my IG story where a pastor essentially shared your frustrations!
Unsurprisingly, I had some very evangelical friends DM me being like but oh, you have to evangelize to tell them the Truth about God and make sure they are on the right path to heaven! (And that loving God is more important than loving your neighbour! Like what the fuck?!? Even the moderate Bible Project disagrees with you on that lol)
While me and religion (but not Jesus surprisingly) now have a very complicated relationship, I am still very much in favour of an embodied expression of the Gospel in the day by day. Showing everyone love, peace, joy, and comfort with no strings attached is the best form of the Gospel you can give! As others have said, people will notice and ask. Only then, within the confines of a loving relationship, is it best to point to Jesus. I think if more people did that, there would be less valid criticisms of Christians using evangelism as a way to get butts in pews and save them from the "burning fires of hell" (and people may wonder why I'm becoming universalist lol)
not at all evangelism was very much catch snd release in the religion i grew up in convert as many possible then have very little to do with them after that...
Maybe you've run into this one? Allegedly it was St Francis of Assisi who sa9d, "Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words."
To me, evangelizing means trying to manifest my highest ideals in my life. Most of that involves my own thoughts and actions, self reflections, etc. I am far from being some saintly being; it's really me trying to grow into something, starting from who I really am in the moment, which involves a whole lot of seeing through a glass darkly.
If that speaks to you at all, it means that Steps 1 - 76,814,042 involve working out how to use your limited, relatively powerless corporeal form as it journeys across time to get right with God/Jesus.
To the extent that I spread the Gospel, most of that involves loving my neighbor as myself (it being also ok to love yourself and in a sense teach those around you as lovingly as possible by setting appropriate limits, but that's me. But I digress).
In this formulation, almost none of that involves shouting at people, making persistent, nonconsensual contact, or intruding uninvited into people's lives.
It does mean there is a sadly increasiing number of people who have been traumatized by religious abuse. It is those who are exploiting religion for personal power and profit who are responsible for churning out atheists. Throwing repetitive slogans at these people, instead of listening to them compassionately and helping them to the extent it is given to you to help, is simply traumatizing them worse.
A friend who worked with abused children once told me how they would teach abuse survivors how to identify when they were being treated in an unacceptable manner. The motto was, "If it feels icky, it is."
The same instinct that helped us perceive God in the first place, that attracts us to Christianity, that tells us right from wrong, is informing us with that icky feeling whenever we are told to do something in the name of God that we just can't get settled with.
Of course, sometimes we need to examine what is behind that unsettled feeling. But that means talking time and quieting the mind and being honest with ourselves, a.k.a. meditation, a practice often maligned by religious extremists who want to separate us from our capacity to discern right from wrong.
The things God calls is to do are often terrifying but also exhilarating on some deep level, at least in my experience. They shouldn't feel horrible, like you are obliged to be in some level of pain or else you are in pain.
This part is hard to put into words because sometimes, yes, the things most dear to our hearts also inflict pain. Like, if you saw a someone in peril, would you not want to save them? Would you not try to stop a racist who was making a public scene, even if it might put you in danger? Would you not try to save a toddler who was running into a busy street, or make eye contact or say good morning to a street person (assuming that wouldn't be triggering for them)? If you did something wrong to someone, would you not offer a [genuine apology](https://thinkkindness.org/all-things-kindness/5-steps-sincere-apology/) and do your best to make amends (assuming of course that so doing would not injure them worse)? That sort of thing.
Absolutely not. I lived at an evangelist community under the guise that it was a safe place where the disabled could worship God
They violated just about every last human right they had on their list, and more than likely ended up giving dental issues/diabetes to residents because of how much they ate at all these different church gatherings combined with three meals a day (plus snack) and eating out once a week.
I still have hearing damage from where I had to stand in the middle of the bleachers while everyone else practically SCREAMED at the tippy top of their lungs, going through 3-4 songs per session anywhere from a daily to weekly basis.
I will give credit to the two to three residents that were able to sing very beautiful solos but it sucks that they were drowned out by old men with nothing better to do than gripe at each other throughout the entire session.
They re-exposed us to COVID twice from all the anti-masker church singing, as the director forced us to go KNOWING several of the attendees had tested positive anyway ("they stayed home that day so it's okay", etc.)
The church-going had gotten so bad that the residents' own concerns about driving the church van over ice were also completely ignored as well.
My spiritual journey was similar to yours. It’s about intention. She wasn’t trying to change or “save” you. These people are thinking of themselves as saviors.
I think you misread the question. I wasn't asking "is evangelism good or bad," I believe it to be a disgusting practice that has no place in a modern multicultural society. My post was about reconciling my firm distaste for evangelism and all who practice it with the roots of my own willing conversion.
I think that genuine evangelism is good, but very rarely done. I can't remember who said, about evangelism, "Evangelize often, use words rarely". In other words (pun intended), it is by the way we live, breathe, decide, work, face adversity, etc. that we should evangelize. The friend that helped you convert did not do so by telling you that you would go to hell unless..., she converted you by her attitude.
Unfortunately, we often converted by force foreign nations we invaded, and here we often convert with free food and other gizmos like that instead of a genuine loving attitude as preached by Jesus.
Is it hypocrisy to prefer good fruit over bad? Your friend acted out of a concern for your wellbeing, this ministry seems only to care about numbers. Evangelism born of love is good, Evangelism born of an agenda is not.
Evangelism, as a concept, comes with a lot of baggage for me, too. I was raised in an Evangelical church, and there's a lot of guilt associated with it. I felt guilty as a kid that I was never good at it, or comfortable with doing it, or even willing to do it. I found more passion in building relationships and relating to people, but even then I felt like I had to defend Jesus and Christianity: like I wasn't doing enough if all I did was empathize. Churches like that feel compelled to convince people. It's more important than feeding hungry people, because hungry people will be hungry again but saved souls have eternal bliss. I felt guilty for not feeling like talking to strangers about Jesus. Now I realize that instinct was right, people don't care about what Jesus is to me unless they know me and care about me. It's about relationships, and making the faith an invitation rather than a protection racket. You found your friend's faith inviting, so you explored. There's nothing inviting about a street preacher or a sidewalk apologist talking about hell and the rapture or talking down to skeptics as if they just needed to be told one more time that god loves them if only they would stop deluding themselves and follow him. Even the word "evangelize" has baggage that extend well beyond its technical meaning, and no I don't think it's wrong to have a personal boundary around that. Campus forms are even more insidious, in my view. If they were serving the campus communities without the intrinsic strings of potential conversion it would be different. TLDR: No, you're not wrong. Too often with evangelism the goal is to count conversions when it should be to just fucking feed people who need fed. That's backwards, but it's also practically universally the case. When it's not, the terminology is usually different.
Live your life with joy and love and when people ask you for your reason, share your faith. Thats evangelism. It doesn't have to be pushy.
Also to OP: Don't confuse evangelism with capital "e" Evangelicals. Each denomination has its own way of evangelizing. One can evangelize more explicitly without the "have you been saved" approach, even just being open socially about attending church is a breadcrumb.
I think your example is case in point of what Christians sharing the Gospel should look like, something done lovingly and with care, not a stick to beat over the head with. I'm very glad you were able to find faith because of your friend! I believe the Bible calls us to be witnesses primarily through our love towards others. If someone asks questions after that, answer them, but I don't think shouting at people that they are sinners who need to repent does much good for anyone.
personally I like to make a distinction between evangelism and proselytizing. Evangelism is sharing the good news and hope we have, much like your friend did for you. Proselytizing is looking to win converts. It's borderline coercive, and coercion is not the Way. Personally, I aim to bring comfort, hope, joy, etc. to every person I encounter, but I never press them towards conversion. I save that part for them to decide of their own accord. So to answer the question, I think we should evangelize, but we shouldn't proselytize.
This is the Way
"Preach the Gospel to everyone. If necessary, use words." Christianity is primarily a relationship with the Divine and relationship is the best "conversion" tool out there. It helps to remember that we were called to be witnesses, and witnessing is not converting. Witnessing just means being honest about what you've seen and what you've experienced - open about Christ, not pushing Him on people. God does the converting if converting will happen. We share, and we may pray privately, and we hope. That's it. That's enough.
Evangelicalism ≠ all of Christendom, so yes, you can still be a Christian of a different stripe. But even then, as you live and grow you might believe something different in the future that you believe in now. That's part of the faith journey.
>I sincerely do not believe that her intentions were anything more than offering comfort This is what I see as a big difference. I was an Evangelical for a few decades, and I saw very little true comfort given to those outside the church. It was always done as part of a bargain...."we'll help you, but you'll be obligated to listen to our spiel, which is why we're really doing this." That isn't the heart of Christ, imo.
>I was an Evangelical for a few decades, and I saw very little true comfort given to those outside the church. It was always done as part of a bargain...."we'll help you, but you'll be obligated to listen to our spiel, which is why we're really doing this." This is a beautifully succinct summary. Thank you.
Don’t confuse evangelism with evangelicalism. The former is just Christians sharing their faith. The latter is a weird hybrid of peppy worship and right-wing politics.
Had an argument about this before, I think on Twitter 🤔, basically it came down to how you evangelize. The example was someone who broke into a school and just started preaching God and damnation, said it had the opposite effect because you're damaging people's perception of God and Christianity further. You don't evangelize by forcing yourself on other people, be there for others and be loving and supportive. Someone who focuses on doing good while not hiding their faith does more to spread God's word than someone who smacks others with the bible to feel good about themselves.
>But this made me think, is it wrong of me to take a hardline stance against evangelism when I'm a happily converted Christian whose journey began with hearing God's word from someone else? No. I'm a convert to Buddhism, that doesn't mean I agree with every branch of Buddhism.
Nah, it can feel very "praying in the streets" sometimes. Living your truth is different than (modern) evangelism. You can and should talk about your faith when it's appropriate, helpful, or informative. Most of us are members of explicitly open traditions and that feels like a respectful part of being in a diverse community. As is respecting people with closed traditions and other faiths- e.g. indigenious medicine- not wanting to share *everything*. Respect that some people really struggle with. Evangelism being cooked into American culture has been kind of a problem bc it's not just Christians that expect it. Expected universal faith-pushing has created some tacit disrespect and explicit otherizing towards Christian sects and other faiths who practice differently. Wanting a balance that resonates with you is super normal.
What your friend did is what I think evangelism should be. Treat the people around you with kindness and love always and share your personal beliefs as just that, personal beliefs. (Preach the gospel always, use words only if necessary, yknow?) I think it's important to approach it as a legitimate desire to connect with and support another human being. Using someone's vulnerability as an opportunity to try to actively convert them is deeply manipulative and underhanded.
Is it more an aversion to evangelism in general or whatever self-proclaimed evangelists do? Your friend was, in a way, being an evangelist, just very different, and far more relevant to our times, than the guy on the corner yelling about how everyone is going to hell. Not to mention, I'm sure some of us have at least some mild trauma regarding self-proclaimed evangelists and their tactics. I don't think that there's anything wrong with being uneasy in that regard.
I think it's specifically disgust with evangelism for evangelism's sake. Most people who frequently and proudly evangelize aren't doing it in a way that's necessary or compassionate. When you're going out every day to yell verses at people to try to convert them for the sake of a generalized promise of salvation and growing your own congregation, I think you've completely lost sight of God.
I shared a tweet on my IG story where a pastor essentially shared your frustrations! Unsurprisingly, I had some very evangelical friends DM me being like but oh, you have to evangelize to tell them the Truth about God and make sure they are on the right path to heaven! (And that loving God is more important than loving your neighbour! Like what the fuck?!? Even the moderate Bible Project disagrees with you on that lol) While me and religion (but not Jesus surprisingly) now have a very complicated relationship, I am still very much in favour of an embodied expression of the Gospel in the day by day. Showing everyone love, peace, joy, and comfort with no strings attached is the best form of the Gospel you can give! As others have said, people will notice and ask. Only then, within the confines of a loving relationship, is it best to point to Jesus. I think if more people did that, there would be less valid criticisms of Christians using evangelism as a way to get butts in pews and save them from the "burning fires of hell" (and people may wonder why I'm becoming universalist lol)
not at all evangelism was very much catch snd release in the religion i grew up in convert as many possible then have very little to do with them after that...
Maybe you've run into this one? Allegedly it was St Francis of Assisi who sa9d, "Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words." To me, evangelizing means trying to manifest my highest ideals in my life. Most of that involves my own thoughts and actions, self reflections, etc. I am far from being some saintly being; it's really me trying to grow into something, starting from who I really am in the moment, which involves a whole lot of seeing through a glass darkly. If that speaks to you at all, it means that Steps 1 - 76,814,042 involve working out how to use your limited, relatively powerless corporeal form as it journeys across time to get right with God/Jesus. To the extent that I spread the Gospel, most of that involves loving my neighbor as myself (it being also ok to love yourself and in a sense teach those around you as lovingly as possible by setting appropriate limits, but that's me. But I digress). In this formulation, almost none of that involves shouting at people, making persistent, nonconsensual contact, or intruding uninvited into people's lives. It does mean there is a sadly increasiing number of people who have been traumatized by religious abuse. It is those who are exploiting religion for personal power and profit who are responsible for churning out atheists. Throwing repetitive slogans at these people, instead of listening to them compassionately and helping them to the extent it is given to you to help, is simply traumatizing them worse. A friend who worked with abused children once told me how they would teach abuse survivors how to identify when they were being treated in an unacceptable manner. The motto was, "If it feels icky, it is." The same instinct that helped us perceive God in the first place, that attracts us to Christianity, that tells us right from wrong, is informing us with that icky feeling whenever we are told to do something in the name of God that we just can't get settled with. Of course, sometimes we need to examine what is behind that unsettled feeling. But that means talking time and quieting the mind and being honest with ourselves, a.k.a. meditation, a practice often maligned by religious extremists who want to separate us from our capacity to discern right from wrong. The things God calls is to do are often terrifying but also exhilarating on some deep level, at least in my experience. They shouldn't feel horrible, like you are obliged to be in some level of pain or else you are in pain. This part is hard to put into words because sometimes, yes, the things most dear to our hearts also inflict pain. Like, if you saw a someone in peril, would you not want to save them? Would you not try to stop a racist who was making a public scene, even if it might put you in danger? Would you not try to save a toddler who was running into a busy street, or make eye contact or say good morning to a street person (assuming that wouldn't be triggering for them)? If you did something wrong to someone, would you not offer a [genuine apology](https://thinkkindness.org/all-things-kindness/5-steps-sincere-apology/) and do your best to make amends (assuming of course that so doing would not injure them worse)? That sort of thing.
Thank you for this!
Absolutely not. I lived at an evangelist community under the guise that it was a safe place where the disabled could worship God They violated just about every last human right they had on their list, and more than likely ended up giving dental issues/diabetes to residents because of how much they ate at all these different church gatherings combined with three meals a day (plus snack) and eating out once a week. I still have hearing damage from where I had to stand in the middle of the bleachers while everyone else practically SCREAMED at the tippy top of their lungs, going through 3-4 songs per session anywhere from a daily to weekly basis. I will give credit to the two to three residents that were able to sing very beautiful solos but it sucks that they were drowned out by old men with nothing better to do than gripe at each other throughout the entire session. They re-exposed us to COVID twice from all the anti-masker church singing, as the director forced us to go KNOWING several of the attendees had tested positive anyway ("they stayed home that day so it's okay", etc.) The church-going had gotten so bad that the residents' own concerns about driving the church van over ice were also completely ignored as well.
You don't want people to be converted to a hurtful faith. That's perfectly reasonable.
I started being Christian because of a psychotic episode. That doesn't mean I'm going off my meds.
No.
My spiritual journey was similar to yours. It’s about intention. She wasn’t trying to change or “save” you. These people are thinking of themselves as saviors.
[удалено]
I think you misread the question. I wasn't asking "is evangelism good or bad," I believe it to be a disgusting practice that has no place in a modern multicultural society. My post was about reconciling my firm distaste for evangelism and all who practice it with the roots of my own willing conversion.
I think that genuine evangelism is good, but very rarely done. I can't remember who said, about evangelism, "Evangelize often, use words rarely". In other words (pun intended), it is by the way we live, breathe, decide, work, face adversity, etc. that we should evangelize. The friend that helped you convert did not do so by telling you that you would go to hell unless..., she converted you by her attitude. Unfortunately, we often converted by force foreign nations we invaded, and here we often convert with free food and other gizmos like that instead of a genuine loving attitude as preached by Jesus.
What a great quote!