Evangelism...

Recently someone came to me to talk about something I'd said in a sermon - the previous post actually.    I spoke about doctrine and faith... primarily as related the Trinity and how we could see this doctrine not so much as a test of someone's orthodoxy, but as an example of what real deep relationship can be like.  I briefly talked about our Christian history of focusing on the spreading of our orthodoxy among the unconverted indigenous peoples of the world and not really looking at real relationship with them.  After sharing my thoughts on this, through this sermon - previous post - (with limited time you can only say so much- with so much more left unspoken), someone came to speak with me about what I’d said.   As an aside, I am grateful they came to me directly.  It shows a degree of comfort, and relationship strong enough, that they could come to me and speak about something they had a problem with!    


They were upset with me... They wanted to know how I, a Christian pastor, could be against evangelism – especially since evangelism is (or ought to be) a cornerstone of the faith?   In fact, they said – wasn’t that one of the mandates Jesus left to his followers… “Make disciples of all nations”?   

Sure… makes sense to me!   But, although evangelism was not the main point of my sermon   (that maybe we could look at the doctrine of Trinity not so much as a measure to judge Orthodoxy, as mush as a challenge for us in the faith to learn about real and deep relationship through)   my thoughts on Evangelism is not that we ought not do it… but more on looking at the manner in which we do it (or did it), and the assumptions underpinning our evangelical motivations.    

I am not against evangelism at all.   But, in speaking about the Us Versus Them “oppositional identity”, as McLaren described it, does both sides an injustice if we come to the Evangelism table assuming “we” are completely true in faith, and “they” are utterly wrong in their faith. 

Although this person talking with me didn't express it this way, I have encountered people who come to evangelism with a certain degree of arrogance.  They may not necessarily say this, but they may believe... “I am right – what I believe is doctrinally correct, and completely in the light of God’s reign.  In contrast, what you believe is in error, and may be outside God’s light and love.   It is my job, then, to help you see the error of your ways, and bring you into the light of God’s complete truth.”   


Starting from this place, in evangelical terms, not only doesn’t respect the other person’s beliefs, but it doesn’t even respect the person holding those views.   We’d be angry if a person from another faith came to us with this perspective trying to “evangelize” us!     What in the world makes us think it’s okay for us to come to another person with a differing faith and do the same to them? 

So, again…   “Evangelism” is not the issue here.   It is the underlying assumption underpinning it, and how that assumption is played out.    Can I speak with someone of another religion, and speak about my faith – those beliefs that are close to my heart?   Yes!    Perhaps our corporate challenge is to do this while at the same time respecting their journey of faith as valid.    Why can't the Creator of the universe be just as present in their religion as I perceive God is in mine?   I can share with them the story of God in my life… what God has done, how God has been present in my life, and at the same time not assume whatever they believe is entirely wrong and needs to be somehow corrected.   

"But if you like something... if you know it works... aren't you going to try and get others to use it?"   Perhaps that's one way of looking at it.   But that assumes I believe there are no other things that work like what I have... and everyone should have what I have because it works for me.   OR... I can share how what I have works in my life, and how good it is for me... without the assumption that what they have is not as good as what I have.    Maybe they believe what they have works for them as much as what I believe I have works for me.   So... whose is better?    

Is all this a matter of definitions or a matter of converting someone?    I think this is where our conversation got stuck -- I didn't disagree with them about the need to evangelize... I just disagreed on the assumptions underpinning some perspectives on Evangelism, namely that whatever "their" faith is, is wrong, and they need to become part of "our" faith.    I think that does violence to both parties.  

Can I share my faith?   Absolutely.   Can I do it while at the same time respecting them and their faith... respecting them and it enough...  to where I do not feel I have to talk them into my faith?   

I understand the latter happens to be the historic primary missionary and colonial model of evangelism.   I understand that this model helped set the foundations for multiple generations of faithful Christians in many parts of the world, including Africa and South America.   That there are many people today who are Christian because of this historic model of evangelism doesn’t, in my opinion, justify the model.  This model historically was based on the assumption that the godless heathens needed to be saved... that their religions were not only not good, but bad.     There was little attempt at respecting the “others” beliefs, much less (in many cases) letting them practice those beliefs in peace.  

Can a form of Evangelism exist that includes not only our ability to share what we believe, but to respect the other persons beliefs (if there are any) in the process – even if we do not agree with it?  Can we share the Story of God in our lives… how we perceive God’s presence, and what we think God might be leading us towards?  Can we share all this as equals with someone whose faith is different that ours… and not assume their religion is less valid than our own, or that because it is different than ours that it is in error?    I think many are asking whether “Evangelism” can look like us sharing our faith, sharing our story of God, and inviting people to our church…to come and share and be a part of what we have come to know… without assuming automatically assume we are “right” and they (“they” being not of our faith) are “wrong”?






I remember a conversation I had with a fellow Chaplain School student back 15 years ago in Fort Jackson, SC.   The Army has a religious tolerance policy that says basically, Chaplains may only evangelize (seek to convert) those soldiers that do not have a declared religion.   The choices of all other soldiers, whose religious preference is already chosen, must be respected.   Every chaplain has to sign a form recognizing that once someone has officially stated their religious preference, their religious preference must be respected... whether the chaplain agrees with it or not... they are "off limits".  


And this is hard for some to accept.  So many do not join and become chaplains.   They can't accept that they are not to evangelize soldiers with declared non Christian religions, no matter what, so they stay away.   Well, one young Chaplain signed the form, but didn't seem to want to follow it.     


This young student - from a nondenominational, what is often called "evangelical" tradition, believed that if a person was not a christian, they should at least try and be convinced to be one.   He fervently believed his religious perspectives were completely correct.       
Yes, that's great.  But can you see that someone of a different faith may have the same sense of conviction about their faith as you do about yours?     And I still remember his answer... because it didn't change....  "Yeah, but their wrong!"   
"But can you see that they might have the same view about you and your faith?"  "Yeah, but they'd be wrong!"  
"But they might have the same view about you... that you're wrong!"  
"Yeah, but they'd be wrong!"  


About a thousand years ago soldiers from Christianity warred against soldiers of Islam... each perhaps being equally as convinced that they were right and the other was wrong.   Sort of reminds me of the two football teams each praying for God to help them win.  Do they have more right to win than the other team?      


Obviously that conversation went nowhere.   He thought anyone that was Christian was "right", and anyone who wasn't Christian was "wrong" -- and the assumption was they needed to be (or attempted to be) converted.    But he couldn't see that a non-Christian might have just as strong a conviction about the rightness of their faith and religion as he had about his.    He could not respect the "other" person and their faith without judgement.  






I wonder if another assumption some may have about evangelism is that while there may be other religions out there... who can deny that... and we may even recognize them as such... none of them is as valid as Christianity.   Maybe there is a notion that Christianity is THE religion... the one that trumps them all.   Interesting... a case could be made that Jesus wasn't a Christian.   He was an observant Jewish rabbi.       


My Systematic Theology professor at Seminary (Dwayne Larson - who later went on to be the president of a Lutheran College in Iowa) talked about this once - why ought we be scared of other religions?   We ought we assume that there are no other valid one's besides ours?   If we believe in a God that made the whole universe, then we can recognize that other religions have an expression of God in them as well... and we may even be able to learn something more about our faith in the process!        


Can I be a Christian... a committed one... a believing Christian... who beliefs in the ministry and life of Jesus, who believes that Jesus still has something to say to us... and can share stories of faith... and can talk about the miracles of God in life..  in my life... to be able to share these stories, and hear stories from the other person, and respect the power and grace of God in their lives...        and still respect the other persons religious choices?   And still respect them and their choices enough to not feel I have to make them change to mine?        Can that be Evangelism too?


When Jesus said... "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19)... did he mean convince them to become Christian?   Is this Evangelism?   Well... the rest of the text is... "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."   That sounds pretty Christian.  But there is a long history of the Christian church doing this - with violence at worst and disrespect at best.   Can we do this evangelism stuff without this violence and disrespect   or the assumption that no other religion is just as valid?       






I was once invited to come to someones house to talk about Christianity.   The son in the family was a Boy Scout, raised in a Bahai home.   He'd invited a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian to come and talk about their faiths.   We each had certain things to address - the major tenets of the faith, central personages, etc.  We went in historical order - first the Jewish man, then me, then the Muslim woman, then the Boy Scouts father a Bahai man.   And he started by saying something like - and then this faith was founded (his faith) as a culmination of the three previous major ones before it.  That his faith completed all the rest.  


How would you have reacted to that?   Would you have been offended?  I was.   In fact, all the rest of us were.   I said - that implies that all the other ones before it are "not as good as" yours.  Why can't you take all these other religions as valid on their own grounds?     The same could be said for some of us in Christianity.      



So, the point of the Matthew Gospel writer seems to be to make more Christians.   It sort of presupposes that Christianity is, if not THE religion, then at least the BEST religion.   It is easy, from this perspective to see other religions as lesser than ours.


Sometimes our faith can sound pretty exclusive - there certainly can be a definite boundary delineating what's "in" and what's "not" in.   Make disciples and baptize them.   Baptism is an entrance rite into the Christian faith.  There we are!   Jesus said it!        






Brian McLaren raises a question that many have been asking -- can we come to the table with people of other faiths, with more than just tolerance... but a mutual respect?   With a respect of their story, their faith?    And with respect has to come acceptance.   Can we see their faith and religion as not only valid, but as an equal voice in the table of faiths?   If we want peace and accord, that seems to me to be more healthy in it's perspective than one mentioned in the above paragraph.


If we want mutual respect... I would think we'd have to give it as well.  And with this wold have to come the sense that we are not the only ones at the table... a sense that the table is round... that we are all partners in a journey of faith.    Does this have to be contrary to the spirit of evangelism?