I could never evangelise. Growing up I decided it couldn't be my spiritual gift, at fundamentalist Bible college (where I was 'forced' to do it for two semesters) I could never bring myself to do so, and today I would consider myself to be wasting my life and maybe even doing wrong if I were to try to convert someone to my religion (or at least to my belief system).
However, I've come to realise that I am evangelising. No, I'm not trying to convince anyone to become a Christian-Pagan, or to subscribe to a particular belief system. Instead, I'm trying to win people over to a 'me-like' way of looking at the world, -- ecological mindedness, concern for the poor and for justice, and being politically conscious and active. This realisation has come about mainly because of an email conversation I've been having for a few years with one of my Moody friends (Maureen).
However, I think that here I have failed: in one of her recent email conversations she wrote, "You're entitled to your opinion, and I'd rather not get drawn into a serious debate, especially when the opinions on either side are not going to change anytime soon." i.e. "I don't want to talk about this because I'm not going to change (and neither are you)."
Like the annoying street preacher who is constantly promising hell (see Bright Eyes, video), am I being offensive? Should I also be set fire to, because I'm doing that which my culture despises? Or is this kind of evangelism OK? Or even 'right'? I obviously think it's right because I'm doing it. Maybe I'll stop in Maureen's case, but that certainly doesn't mean I'll stop everywhere. I can't remain silent. Am I not called to speak for justice, to cry out for those who are given no voice?
Is this still evangelism? Should I stop despising those who yell 'hell' at me because I am guilty of the same evil? Am I trying to convert people to a religion of 'eco-political-justice thinking', which is just the same as trying to convert people to 'naïve-world-destroying fundamentalism'? Or is my evangelism different? Is it still-wrong-but-forgivable? Or is it what I should be doing, what I am called to do?
i think you're on to something, stu. aren't we all always trying to convince ourselves that we're right by convincing others of it?
ReplyDeleteI'm convinced no one is evil from their own perspective (unless they want to believe they're evil, in which case they effectively think evil is good, therefore they're good). This could be a whole post, but I'll put it in the comment section.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Bush thinks he's doing the best thing for the world (speeding JC's return), for himself, and for his friends. In fact, doing stuff for friends is really doing stuff for yourself anyway, because of the expected payback. It's unusual to come across people who don't expect/allow payback.
I guess what I'm all saying is that it's all relative. Good is not inherent in anything, but always from a relationship perspective. This would probably be a major part of the reason I believe I must side with the oppressed (poor, women, non-whites, etc.).
Maybe one day I'll articulate this thought more clearly. But for now this will have to do.
it drives me crazy when people say "it's all relative". it's such a cop-out.
ReplyDeleteyou asked for comments...there you have it! :)
You asked for my comment, so here goes:
ReplyDeleteIn a way, all of us are evangelists, whether we realize it or not. You've heard the old saying "Actions speak louder than words." Well, evangelism is the same way. Our very lives are a witness to our belief system. More people become convinced of a particular way of thinking, not because of a convincing argument, but the testimony of our very lives. Evangelism, in that sense, is inescapable.
I see what you're saying about no one honestly believing that they're evil. (For a second, I was a little confused, and thought you were saying there was no evil!)Of course everyone WANTS to be right. But the question still remains: Who actually is right? or, more accurately WHAT is "right?" Who defines right and wrong?
Here's some food for thought: Is God always right because there is some higher standard of right and wrong and God always follows it, or is God always right because He defines right and wrong?
But back to the subject of evangelism: If you honestly believe that you're right in your beliefs and your way of thinking, then of course you're going to want to convince as many people as possible of your way of thinking. The problem comes when the other person is unwilling (or unable) to budge. What's the next step? Should we continue to push our point of view until we batter our opponent into submission, or do we stop arguing for the sake of peace and friendship and hope that in the end, whoever is "wrong" will come to a right way of thinking on their own? I personally choose the latter. There's only so much a person can say before it becomes white noise. I don't know who said this, but it is quite helpful to remember that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Thanks for commenting Maureen.
ReplyDeleteI like what your saying about lives being evangelism. But I always get stuck on God defining good. Does this not make good God? And while I'm OK in one sense saying good is God, I don't think that the good is anything like our concepts of God, especially if we view Him as a masculine power 'who' is over against the world. I think that as long as God is seen as a being separate from the universe, rather than the universe itself, then our concept of God will never be the same as our concept of good. Something like that, tho I do realise I am here slipping into pantheism. Oh well.
Keep thinking about it Stu. But don't hurt yourself ;)
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that this is something that nobody yet has been able to fully understand.
Including Go(o)d. :)
ReplyDelete