My personal experience of evangelism

[whag]

In my early years, I was what I guess you could call a hard core evangelistic Christian. Then, about 1975-ish, I was working in a medical clinic in Haiti, and saw a sign over the blackboard in the school room at our orphanage that said "a hungry stomach has no ears". (That may be attributed to somebody famous, I don't know, but it really had an impact on me) It was WHY we were feeding the orphans and teaching them in school and loving them and tending to their physical needs. Nobody pretended that our ultimate goal was not to win them to Jesus, but we fully understood that Jesus met people at the point of their need. It changed things.

Since then, I have been involved in lots of ministry things, and I fully admit that the ultimate goal is evangelism, but in God's time. Ministering to needs first, sharing the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God. It has always worked really well that way.

I'm amazed, from time to time, how people jump to the conclusion that because I'm a conservative Christian -- well, it's like one of the posters here said... pretty much accusing me of an over-evangelistic zeal and not caring about the needs of people, feeding the hungry, etc. I'll admit that often, conservative Christians seem isolated from "the social gospel", and may even tend to criticize it. But I can assure you that a lot of us see these things as inseparable.

I am involved in ministry to the poor in a whole bunch of ways. Is my ultimate goal "evangelism". Unashamedly, I admit, yes, it is. For, what kind of Christian would I be to tend to the immediate but temporal needs of people in this life, and neglect their eternal destiny?

I have always been taught "tell them about Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God".

The problem is the obligatory aspect of the gospel that is easily misunderstood. If you merely let your good works be the goal and barely mention the tropes of Christianity at all, is that ultimately a help or a hindrance to the kingdom? I'd wager that this approach is more demonstrative of faith then one with an explicit pedagogical end goal, which casts suspicion on your motive just like any explicit proselytic goal by ANY religion, from Scientology to Mormonism, casts suspicion. It would seem God would be more honoring of the subtle approach.

[shunyadragon]

Subtitled: 'And why I don't like it.'

In my twenties I was teaching in a remote country town where I met my wife (who was a Christian). She wasn't a 'beat you over the head' kind of Christian. You knew it was her faith and she answered your questions. I was really into CS Lewis, and began over sometime to accept more and more of Christianity. I had a conversion experience on my own, and since it's intensely personal, I won't bore you with the details. Some time later we were married and both looked for ways to 'serve the Lord' more directly. I accepted a job in a Christian school in Melbourne. (Yes I know, I was never REALLY a Christian because I'm not one now.)

That didn't last long. The school was involved in a bitter internal dispute over some philosophy as to the extent Creation could be another revelation of God. Great fun. Committed Christians were tearing each other down left and right and conspiring in cadres to oust everybody else.

I resigned and we came back to teach in state schools.

We attended a local Baptist church and were very active within it. A lovely lady (since passed) was an elder and wanted very much to do the best she could for God. She used a program called 'Evangelism Explosion' and we all learnt how to 'win' souls, memorising our verses and arguments. We'd go to local families and run through our spiel and harangue people in their own homes. I remember with shame the perplexed look on most people's faces as we interrupted their precious night family time.

Over time, I got more into the 'charismatic' side of things. We joined an Assembly of God church and I rose to be a worship leader. I can vividly remember how one elder told he just KNEW I was leading by the Spirit because he got goosebumps whenever I lead the music. It was here I learned how easy it was to manipulate the feelings of the congregation. In fact, we were encouraged to do so. I was good at it. We always had an alter appeal and I watched hundreds of people whipped up into an easy emotionalism come forward. It was also here that I learned that many of the programs of the church were fraudulent. They CLAIMED to be doing one thing but were all fundamentally aimed at evangelism. People were considered 'targets' and 'scalps'. It had as much integrity as selling insurance or used cars.

I have seen this pattern repeated over and over again in various churches and organisations. Ministry X seems a good and charitable thing to do, but remember our REAL aim (which we won't tell the suckers) is to 'win' them for Jesus so I can get a merit badge in heaven.

I read and thought (yes, and prayed) more and more growing more and more dissatisfied with the dishonesty and hard sell of organised Christianity. So after much anguish I left. I no longer consider myself a Christian and none of you consider me one either.

I despise evangelism. To me it is a sign of dishonesty and manipulation. It's almost always simple minded. It demeans the Other, because it so hardly ever listens to the life experience the other person has.

The Jews (who serve the same God) have an entirely different approach. When you say to them you're considering becoming a Jew they usually respond 'Why on earth would you want to do that?' Catholics aren't bad either. They simply can't believe you'd like to be a member of their flawed club. I'm attracted to both because of that.

It would be a cheap throwaway line to say I left Christianity because of the bad behaviour of a few people. I didn't. I have deep theological and philosophical objections to much of Christian belief and practice. But I will admit to feeling vindicated on a regular basis.

This is of course a common tragedy that can be manifest in different religions and faiths over the eons, and there are of course worse, but I believe that the search for one's faith must go deeper then the human frailty or their methods of proselytizing on the surface. Example, just because you see favor in the methods you experience among the Jews does not translate to the fundamental soundness of their spiritual message for humanity. I personally believe that the Jews do not propose a message of salvation nor guidance for ALL of humanity. Just because the methods of proselytizing you witnessed of the evangelicals, does not in and of itself, does not determine the truthfulness of the religious message they share. Though the witness of how those that believe differently in general does reflect on how the guidance from scripture may be translated to personal acts in one's life.

I chose a more deeper and broader search into the theology and philosophy of the nature of humanity being human in the diversity and universal of our history and the nature of our physical existence through science, because here lies the real objective witness of whatever underlies the Source of everything which is possibly natural or Divine. Claims of Truth from the perspective of fallible humans could hardly come up with one belief that is the one Truth above all others.

The search for the universal and truth is more illusive then most claim. It is likely if the shoes feel comfortable and fit, they are not the universal shoes for the hard climb to the middle mountain.

[Cow Poke]

It's apparently a lose-lose for Christians, then.

If they do something that actually helps people in their everyday lives, then they're being deceptive because they have 'other motives'.

If they don't do anything very practical, just try to tell people about Jesus, then they're just offering 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Isn't it at all possible that at least some Christians both want to help people in their present lives, and (hopefully) help them know Jesus, who, Christians believe, is wonderful, loving, and our only way to fully full life?

In my early years, I was what I guess you could call a hard core evangelistic Christian. Then, about 1975-ish, I was working in a medical clinic in Haiti, and saw a sign over the blackboard in the school room at our orphanage that said "a hungry stomach has no ears". (That may be attributed to somebody famous, I don't know, but it really had an impact on me) It was WHY we were feeding the orphans and teaching them in school and loving them and tending to their physical needs. Nobody pretended that our ultimate goal was not to win them to Jesus, but we fully understood that Jesus met people at the point of their need. It changed things.

Since then, I have been involved in lots of ministry things, and I fully admit that the ultimate goal is evangelism, but in God's time. Ministering to needs first, sharing the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God. It has always worked really well that way.

I'm amazed, from time to time, how people jump to the conclusion that because I'm a conservative Christian -- well, it's like one of the posters here said... pretty much accusing me of an over-evangelistic zeal and not caring about the needs of people, feeding the hungry, etc. I'll admit that often, conservative Christians seem isolated from "the social gospel", and may even tend to criticize it. But I can assure you that a lot of us see these things as inseparable.

I am involved in ministry to the poor in a whole bunch of ways. Is my ultimate goal "evangelism". Unashamedly, I admit, yes, it is. For, what kind of Christian would I be to tend to the immediate but temporal needs of people in this life, and neglect their eternal destiny?

I have always been taught "tell them about Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God".

[shunyadragon]

A paradox: Catholic charitable organizations, as opposed to evangelical ones, don't tie their help to proselytization efforts, but, if I bring that up, am I proselytizing?

This is a paradox within a paradox, because historically the way the Roman Church grew is through establishing their missions with charitable services, which is simply another way or proselytizing. Careful how one defines proselytizing, because in and of itself it is not bad, but the methods can surely be bad, and at times the the Roman Church has used bad methods of proselytizing.

[Spartacus]

There's a way around that. And, we still have cookies.

Now, see, you proselytized right there

[Juvenal]

A paradox: Catholic charitable organizations, as opposed to evangelical ones, don't tie their help to proselytization efforts, but, if I bring that up, am I proselytizing?

There's a way around that. And, we still have cookies.

[Juvenal]

It's apparently a lose-lose for Christians, then.

If they do something that actually helps people in their everyday lives, then they're being deceptive because they have 'other motives'.

If they don't do anything very practical, just try to tell people about Jesus, then they're just offering 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Isn't it at all possible that at least some Christians both want to help people in their present lives, and (hopefully) help them know Jesus, who, Christians believe, is wonderful, loving, and our only way to fully full life?

"Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." — Francis of Assissi?

I'm not sure about the author. I am sure words are not necessary. If Christianity works for you, providing you with a "fully full" life, it'll be obvious to people around you.

Meanwhile, atheists apparently get a free pass, and can live as selfishly as they like. Or not.

True enough, except for the "atheists" part.

I've seen the Civics forum here at TWeb. It's filled with Christians preaching the gospel of cheaper burgers at the expense of the counter help, and non-Christians arguing otherwise. For the most part, that is ... Sam excepted, of course ... not that that shelters him from flak from his fellow adherents.

In ten years on TWeb, the only person I've ever seen in Civics who had personally started and run a homeless shelter was Christina. Yeah, she's an atheist.

Some folks want to think running a soup kitchen or volunteering at the VA are virtues exclusive to their faith, going so far as to exclude non-adherents from their charitable ministries. That's a worst case, but it does happen. There are other reasons given, but the end result is the same.

In the US, more often, you're just made to feel unwelcome if you show up to help. There are notable exceptions, like Habitat for Humanity, but for the most part, we're restricted to financial contributions to faceless bureaucracies like the United Way. Arguably more efficient than religious charities — Catholic Charities and The Salvation Army are notable exceptions — but not especially satisfying on a personal level.

As ever, Jesse

[Spartacus]

A paradox: Catholic charitable organizations, as opposed to evangelical ones, don't tie their help to proselytization efforts, but, if I bring that up, am I proselytizing?

[Paprika]

Many Christians have a warped conception of the gospel which naturally affects their evangelism.

It was also here that I learned that many of the programs of the church were fraudulent. They CLAIMED to be doing one thing but were all fundamentally aimed at evangelism. People were considered 'targets' and 'scalps'. It had as much integrity as selling insurance or used cars.

Sure enough, at Christmas I overheard my parents telling the same story to their religious relatives and they included a lot more bits to the story than what they'd told me, and sure enough, the motivations of the guy doing this were primarily about evangelism. Helping poor people out of debt was apparently a useful tool for winning souls for Christ.

My guess would be that Western conceptualisations of a religious/public space distinction (the generalisation of church-state separation) leads to an implicit axiom that any Christian action in the public space must be geared towards evangelism; the people who hold this axiom thus will organise programmes to help the community but with the help as a means to 'evangelism' rather than an end. It is all too easy to justify such 'evangelism' in terms of the good of those preached at when the real motivation is self-exaltation.

This is NOT a thread I'd like to see resolve along familiar lines of us vs them.

Apologetics 301 is a dangerous place for such threads.

[firstfloor]

I've always understood the 'Great Commission' to be about helping people to know Jesus as I know Him, and to choose to consciously and actively follow Him in their lives, for all their lives.

In other words you know what’s best – you deflect it of course, to Jesus, but because you know what Jesus wants and you agree with him or he agrees with you, you really do know what’s best. The problem is that you are forbidden to consider whether Jesus could be wrong. That is the great weakness of your position.

[firstfloor]

Jesus who in turn teaches us how to love others ..... just because atheists have rejected that message ...

Not true. The message that everyone benefits if they love one another is not in the least problematic for atheists. It is not exclusively a Christian message.

[pancreasman]

Agreed. God created us as physical beings (we are now and will be after the final resurrection) so it would be very odd if Christians did not interact with others in a physical way, and since the Great Commission was to preach the gospel I don't know why someone would be surprised at Christians looking for opportunity to preach the gospel. As Christians we care about others because we are trying to emulate Jesus who in turn teaches us how to love others. Would Jesus want to help people to take control of their finances? I think so? I remember last year when the ebola crisis came to the medias attention there was tempered outrage that Christian missionaries were already there helping. No one ever denied that Christians have a message and just because atheists have rejected that message doesn't mean than others should not have the chance of hearing it. Anti-Christians always accuse Christians of trying to control people and their behaviour, but look closely and see just who the control freaks are!!

Actually, I don't consider myself an atheist and whether I am or not has no relevance to my experience. People who think enough of their faith to come to a site like this, are obviously more actively involved and I'd wager more likely to act with integrity.

In the general population of people claiming to be Christians, my experience is as I have written. I'm well aware that some Christians are able to act with integrity and depth with regards to evangelism. This is NOT a thread I'd like to see resolve along familiar lines of us vs them.

[Abigail]

It's apparently a lose-lose for Christians, then.

If they do something that actually helps people in their everyday lives, then they're being deceptive because they have 'other motives'.

If they don't do anything very practical, just try to tell people about Jesus, then they're just offering 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Isn't it at all possible that at least some Christians both want to help people in their present lives, and (hopefully) help them know Jesus, who, Christians believe, is wonderful, loving, and our only way to fully full life?


Meanwhile, atheists apparently get a free pass, and can live as selfishly as they like. Or not. I'm beginning to suspect that there's a reason your parents are increasingly conservative....

Agreed. God created us as physical beings (we are now and will be after the final resurrection) so it would be very odd if Christians did not interact with others in a physical way, and since the Great Commission was to preach the gospel I don't know why someone would be surprised at Christians looking for opportunity to preach the gospel. As Christians we care about others because we are trying to emulate Jesus who in turn teaches us how to love others. Would Jesus want to help people to take control of their finances? I think so? I remember last year when the ebola crisis came to the medias attention there was tempered outrage that Christian missionaries were already there helping. No one ever denied that Christians have a message and just because atheists have rejected that message doesn't mean than others should not have the chance of hearing it. Anti-Christians always accuse Christians of trying to control people and their behaviour, but look closely and see just who the control freaks are!!

[MaxVel]

Reminds me of a conversation with my increasingly-more-conservative Christian parents a year or so ago. They'd had a speaker at their church who had started an organisation working with poor people who were in debt, helping them sort out their finances. "That's the sort of Christianity you'd approve-of right?" they said to me, and indeed it was, as they made what the guy was doing sound like a really great idea that was truly making a meaningful impact to people's lives.

My response was along the lines of "that sounds wonderful, could it be scaled-up to happen throughout the country? You could probably get government funding for that sort of thing" but I suspected that this all sounded too-good to be true, because call me a skeptic, but over the years I've been sufficiently disillusioned about Christians and them helping people. Sure enough, at Christmas I overheard my parents telling the same story to their religious relatives and they included a lot more bits to the story than what they'd told me, and sure enough, the motivations of the guy doing this were primarily about evangelism. Helping poor people out of debt was apparently a useful tool for winning souls for Christ.

It's apparently a lose-lose for Christians, then.

If they do something that actually helps people in their everyday lives, then they're being deceptive because they have 'other motives'.

If they don't do anything very practical, just try to tell people about Jesus, then they're just offering 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Isn't it at all possible that at least some Christians both want to help people in their present lives, and (hopefully) help them know Jesus, who, Christians believe, is wonderful, loving, and our only way to fully full life?


Meanwhile, atheists apparently get a free pass, and can live as selfishly as they like. Or not. I'm beginning to suspect that there's a reason your parents are increasingly conservative....

[Starlight]

Ministry X seems a good and charitable thing to do, but remember our REAL aim (which we won't tell the suckers) is to 'win' them for Jesus so I can get a merit badge in heaven.

Reminds me of a conversation with my increasingly-more-conservative Christian parents a year or so ago. They'd had a speaker at their church who had started an organisation working with poor people who were in debt, helping them sort out their finances. "That's the sort of Christianity you'd approve-of right?" they said to me, and indeed it was, as they made what the guy was doing sound like a really great idea that was truly making a meaningful impact to people's lives.

My response was along the lines of "that sounds wonderful, could it be scaled-up to happen throughout the country? You could probably get government funding for that sort of thing" but I suspected that this all sounded too-good to be true, because call me a skeptic, but over the years I've been sufficiently disillusioned about Christians and them helping people. Sure enough, at Christmas I overheard my parents telling the same story to their religious relatives and they included a lot more bits to the story than what they'd told me, and sure enough, the motivations of the guy doing this were primarily about evangelism. Helping poor people out of debt was apparently a useful tool for winning souls for Christ.