Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 04.26.2006 /
Karen posted this on the Off-The-Map discussion board yesterday. There has already been some discussion of it there. I’m bringing it over here too since she’s asking some great questions.
Do ethics matter when it comes to evangelism, or do the ends justify the means?
When I was an evangelical Christian, I was routinely taught to do pretty much anything necessary in order to “bring someone to Christ.” The idea was that the pit of hell was looming wide, so it was permissible to use many tactics that might be judged unethical in other contexts, in order to get a person saved. This included inviting them to church for a “neutral” service (such as a holiday pageant) that was really planned as an evangelistic event, complete with altar call. I consider that a fairly inoffensive example (though still troubling), but there was also much worse going on, including things that contributed to my leaving Christianity and religion in general.
As an example, some friends and I have been chuckling over this evangelism video by actor Kirk Cameron.
Not only is it incredibly ignorant (and unintentionally hilarious), but it is also blatantly deceptive, and teaches Christians to be deceptive in witnessing. (The Darwin quote is discussed here)
I’d be curious as to whether believers on this site have also been taught that the end justifies the means when it comes to saving souls? If so, does it bother you at all, do you reject it, or do you find it acceptable?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Lisa W.
1 04/26/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |I would say this is a results oriented culture.
If the results don’t look like what you want then the program failed and it’s time to recalibrate. I’m pretty sure the program has failed. Tactics that are HIGH RISK/LOW PAYOFF are, imo, masochistic and in a weird way selfserving, martyr-type behavior.
I also think Bait and Switch tactics are slimey, although many times well intentioned.
Comment by: Texan
2 04/26/06 3:56 PM | Comment Link |I agree Lisa.
What kind of response do people really expect when they use this kind of tactic on others? What, like the people it’s used on won’t figure it out?
How’s that saying go…..oh yeah….”The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” You can have the best intentions in the world and still do the wrong thing. I don’t think that having good intentions is enough. I think that if someone has to resort to sneaky tactics to “reach someone for the Kingdom” they aren’t being truthful, they are being dishonest. What a double standard for a faith that is all about integrity.
Some of this I think stems from the culture rather than the religion because we are a results and numbers-driven society. What I have observed in the Christian community in regards to evangelism is a great sense of urgency because “we never know which moment will be our last.” Perhaps this leads people to feel like they have to control or force a situation that would hopefully lead to salvation.
There are certain tactics Christians are taught to use when approaching others. If anyone has been approaced by a Jehovah’s Witness or a mormon, you know the drill they go through. However, it’s not limited to them, there are many cookie-cutter tactics taught because perhaps people are clueless otherwise. I think what Christians need to learn is how to break the mold and give control back to God, because if there really is something called salvation, only he can give it. This site does a great job at teaching people to break the mold.
Sorry for the rant. just some thoughts.
Comment by: Stephan
3 04/26/06 4:03 PM | Comment Link |I wrote this over on the message board, but I’ll repeat it here. If I had been brought up with this kind of Christian teaching, I would probably be an Atheist today. This kind of witnessing has little to do with Jesus and a lot to do with religion (and I use that term in the worst possible way).
Comment by: Jim Henderson
4 04/26/06 4:03 PM | Comment Link |Jesus did not use these kinds of tactics and I assume that he is the leader we are trying to emulate
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
5 04/26/06 4:37 PM | Comment Link |Stephan and Jim both nail it. The ends NEVER justify the means. And that is especially true when I am representing God. Integrity and respect of persons are very high on His list (else He wouldn’t have granted us the free will to choose in opposition to Him) so I dare not engage a person for His sake with a lack of respect for their integrity and their freedom of choice.
Comment by: Ir
6 04/26/06 5:46 PM | Comment Link |If I managed to entice visitors to any of those ‘outreach events’ their verdict was generally “pretty good except the pastor’s bit at the end”. It was sort of embarrassing that it always had to be there.
Comment by: NCxian
7 04/26/06 5:57 PM | Comment Link |I was raised main-line Protestant. I was never taught evangelizing techniques of any kind. We were taught that our lives were our witness.
Comment by: Ir
8 04/26/06 7:06 PM | Comment Link |Indeed.
I’m fairly sure the video hosts claimed they were using Jesus’ methods. I was rather surprised to hear that.
Although, I suppose it’s typical of Christians to try to validate their method by saying it’s God’s way, or Jesus’ way.
Comment by: Lisa
9 04/26/06 8:33 PM | Comment Link |From what I understand, Jesus was rather homely in appearance but had amazing ‘people skills’, unlike the people in this video. I can surmise that he was very good at hanging out with folks. THAT I can do.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10 04/26/06 10:16 PM | Comment Link |Kirk said ” The way Jesus did it” which is a throw away line for evangelists who know that most people in their audience will never know how to challenge that kind of quote. This is why I switched to The Jesus Movie rather than Jesus words - anyone can lift out sections of the script and fool anyone else- but if you play the whole movie over and over you begin to see the patterns of Jesus and you know that THAT is the real message
Comment by: Ian
11 04/26/06 10:19 PM | Comment Link |well I have seen many a Christian apologist rail against “moral relativism” so to hear an evangelical use the idea of “the ends justifying the means” to be an incredible example of hypocrisy.So lying/deceiving is ok if it suits your end…
Interesting…
Comment by: Paul O'Driscoll
12 04/27/06 3:44 AM | Comment Link |Yeah - I am an evangelical Christian and I’m often uncomfortable with this sort of thing. Yet I don’t think people mean any harm by it and I don’t think people realize that it is wrong.
A lot of the time people are just trying to find friendly imaginative ways to spread the good news without annoying people. I suppose it’s a bit like getting a free pen from your local bank or whatever. They’re not trying to trick you into using their bank. It’s basically PR or marketting but it can get a bit ridiculous at times. I hate when a Bahai or whatever is sneakily trying to get across their message so I assume that it’s equally annoying if we do it.
But the more feedback we get from non-believers, the better. There’s no point someone like me saying it. They just look at me blankly and think I’m just being a wet blanket. I sometimes say - “what would you think if the Mormons or Jehovahs witnesses did this sort of thing”?
Having said all that, we should try to spread the good news as Christians without being pushy, sneaky or silly and it’s not easy.
Comment by: Ir
13 04/27/06 4:05 AM | Comment Link |Good points, Paul - thanks for your response.
May I be a little provocative, based on the following?
Are you sure they aren’t?
I’m not. I mean, what does giving a free pen have to do with being a competent bank? It’s not really relevant, is it? It actually tells me absolutely nothing about whether that would be a good bank for me.
All it tells me is that this bank thinks if they give me a pen I’m more likely to bank there. Which would actually be a rather irrational decision on my part.
So in fact, maybe it tells me they think I’m sort of stupid, because I might actually choose a bank based on getting a free pen from them.
I’m sure it tells me they didn’t anticipate me thinking about the free pen offer that much :)
Comment by: Ir
14 04/27/06 4:09 AM | Comment Link |Good points, Ian.
Please note that no Christian responding here has agreed that lying and deceiving people is justified in evangelism.
Comment by: Ir
15 04/27/06 4:14 AM | Comment Link |I agree that watching the movie repeatedly is a better way to understand what Jesus was all about than lifting a verse here or there from the writings about him.
I even think - as I have said here before but not quite this way - that
a) watching a few clips from the movie repeatedly and thinking deeply about them gives a person a better understanding about Jesus than
b) watching the entire movie with someone sitting next to you telling you what it means at a volume level which drowns out much of what is going on on the screen.
Comment by: NCxian
16 04/27/06 4:35 AM | Comment Link |Do I recall that “the Jesus movie” is not a real movie? Can somebody remind me, and fill the newcomers in on the metaphor?
Comment by: Ir
17 04/27/06 5:34 AM | Comment Link |It’s Jim’s definition; as I understand it, ‘the Jesus movie’ is his way of referring to Jesus’ life as he pictures it - that picture being drawn from the gospel accounts.
The value of this approach, it seems to me, is that it preserves the integrity of each ’scene’. In other words it protects against verses here or there being pulled out of context and used to make Jesus appear otherwise than he does if you take the scenes of Jesus’ life into account in their entirety.
I also think it encourages a relatively open approach to understanding Jesus - since when we watch movies we let the movie unfold and let whatever it evokes in us sort of ‘happen’, rather than being hyper-analytical about each movie moment as we watch it. Or frequently referring to some notes about what the director intended to make absolutely sure we’re not ‘misunderstanding’ something.
Hopefully Jim will correct me to the extent I have misinterpreted what he means by ‘the Jesus movie’.I guess whatever it means to him, now you know what the metaphor means to me :)
(Not that I’m taking a position that the movie is true, by the way. I’m sure it’s interesting but I’m not sure it’s true)
Comment by: Julie Marie
18 04/27/06 5:35 AM | Comment Link |yep!
Comment by: TXatheist
19 04/27/06 6:51 AM | Comment Link |Ir, I don’t think people lie here but do you think Kirk Cameron is lying? I don’t think Ken Hamm or Michael Behe lie outright but that they truly think they are not lying and they are being completely honest so they keep using the approaches they use because they truly believe it.
Comment by: Paul O'Driscoll
20 04/27/06 7:20 AM | Comment Link |Good point about the free pen. Maybe I’ve gone soft. I’ll know what to say now the next time someone suggests an evangelistic barn dance!
The only thing I’ll say in defence of all that sort of thing is that people want to see a friendly side to a church. I’d imagine that if I was thinking of joining an atheist society or whatever, I’d like to get to know them as people and not just have philosophical discussions all the time. You probably could do that without any deception at all - just have the event for people to get to know one another and if they have any questions about the church, feel free to ask but otherwise, let them get on with the dancing.
I’ve never really taken the initiative in organizing such events but I’ve gone to some and they were OK.
I still think that you are fundamentally right though and I can understand why Karen was annoyed.
Comment by: Ir
21 04/27/06 7:24 AM | Comment Link |I don’t like their approach at all. I deliberately said “Christians here” in my response to Ian.
On the other hand I nearly died laughing when they explained all the ways the banana is designed for humans to eat. (It’s really hard to believe they weren’t making fun of themselves at that point but I’m sure they weren’t) So the video was worth watching for that part :)
Comment by: Ir
22 04/27/06 7:27 AM | Comment Link |Great point, Julie.
I tried to tell the pastor on Monday that doesn’t this mean I can be nice to people and let God take care of the rest? He strongly disagreed - he said that might lead them astray and lead them to hell.
Comment by: Ir
23 04/27/06 7:30 AM | Comment Link |Fair enough. I agree that that should be a priority of a church. Who in their right mind would want to join somewhere unfriendly?
Comment by: Julie Marie
24 04/27/06 8:04 AM | Comment Link |I have spent the last 40 years accepting responsiblity for things that are not under my control. I am sickened unto death by this tactic. Well meaning people use it all the time. God’s only plan for spreading the word of salvation is us, they say. SEZ WHO, I say? You have full knowledge of Gods plan? Forget the arguement of biblical inerrance — lets just say, for the sake of this one particular arguement, that it actually is the inerrant word of God. What makes anyone so sure it is the complete word of God? The final word? The creator of the universe spoke and strode from the room? I don’t think so.
sorry for the rant. 40 some years of carrying others burdens just broke me.
Comment by: Julie Marie
25 04/27/06 8:05 AM | Comment Link |btw, the questions I posed above are definitely beyond the ROAA in my church. What a pickle I find myself in.
Comment by: Paul O'Driscoll
26 04/27/06 8:07 AM | Comment Link |Well, before I became an evangelical Christian, I saw a Baptist Church with a sign saying “All Welcome”. I wondered whether this referred to Baptists only or ‘everyone’. I think they had a film running one night a few months later and I went along. I suppose because it was a special event, I thought I might be able to slip in without being noticed.
In Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants are even more polarized and I think a special effort needs to be made to make it clear that you really do welcome outsiders.
Ironically, there are people out there who want to check out churches but are a bit nervous for various reasons. For example, if a church pasted serious arguments on their doctrines all over the Internet, I’d almost be nervous of going in for fear of holding a different view on something. That’s what I mean by a friendly church - a place that you can go and chat without feeling that you had to hold exactly the same views on everything.
WRT to the “lead them astray and lead them to hell” point, You should tell people the gospel. It’s difficult to know where to go from there. You don’t want to be annoying them all the time but at the same time, if you really do believe in heaven and hell, people have to be reminded of these truths. As a driver, I know how to drive safely but I need to be reminded to drive safely. If I have a little scare, I’m always grateful because it alerts me to the fact that I need to be more careful.
Comment by: Julie Marie
27 04/27/06 10:49 AM | Comment Link |yeah, watching them sit on their magic carpet by the lake, talking about how the banana is curved towards the face caused me to snort water out my nose. They were just so darned earnest about the whole thing.
Comment by: Ir
28 04/27/06 11:52 AM | Comment Link |Julie, based on my experience - how you frame things (the story you tell yourself about your situation) can make a big difference. It’s good that you’ve realized what they haven’t yet realized - even though it has complicated things and may be causing you to feel uncomfortable. Don’t let anything or anyone make you feel invalidated. Retain your personal power and make your own choices. You can say nothing about your outside-the-ROAA thoughts; or you can share them. Be careful who you share them with, if you decide to share them.
Maybe you will need to widen your circle of friends/acquaintances to include people who understand where you’re coming from. But whatever you decide to do - the choice is yours. You are going to have more freedom than you ever had before. It’s going to be a wonderful thing.
However people react, remember it’s about them, not you. Don’t let their issues mess you up.
Comment by: Julie Marie
29 04/27/06 12:17 PM | Comment Link |OK, so I’m not in a pickle but on a hot air balloon ride ;) Thanks Ir, you are right again.
Comment by: Ir
30 04/27/06 12:52 PM | Comment Link |Yes, yes, you got it!
I can well believe you’re riding on a lot of [some other peoples'] hot air - LOL :)
Comment by: Julie Marie
31 04/27/06 12:55 PM | Comment Link |Indeed.
Comment by: Karen
32 04/27/06 4:00 PM | Comment Link |I was raised in a mainline Presbyterian church and I also remember the teaching about how “your life is your witness.” It was only when I got into my teens and started attending evangelistic and fundamentalist churches that coercive evangelism tactics were espoused and employed. And, they tended to think that the “your life is your witness” bit was pretty wimpy. :-)
Paul mentioned that Christians who use unethical means to evangelize are well-intentioned, and I absolutely agree. However, well-meaning does not equal good or right, and I think a lot of evangelicals don’t acknowledge that. I also agree with Paul’s comment that they don’t think about it enough to realize this behavior is unethical. I posted over on the other board that the idea of a literal hell may be the crux of the problem. That and a general discouragement of “thinking outside the box” in many Christian traditions.
Julie Marie, in my experience, once my questions got beyond the ROAA, there was no turning back. I found it very difficult to “stuff” those questions back down and be content again with the status quo once I acknowledged certain things. I also felt it might even be unhealthful to try, if you know what I mean.
Comment by: Julie Marie
33 04/27/06 6:44 PM | Comment Link |yup. its torment on earth to think if your loved ones don’t believe they will be tormented for eternity. i expended significant emotional energy not being overwhelmed with sadness and despair over my sister, and my niece and nephew, and so on and so on….that gnashing of teeth stuff is bad business.
right now I’m really pissed about that belief. its a guarantee “hook” for any believer who loves his/her family and friends, to turn them into an persistant pest. kinda like those SC no see um flying teeth.
Comment by: Paul O'Driscoll
34 04/28/06 1:41 AM | Comment Link |I’m not sure if getting rid of a literal hell is the answer. I suppose if you don’t believe in it, you don’t believe in it but I wouldn’t stop believing in it because I find it upsetting. - I mean - there is plenty going on in the present world that could overwhelm you at times but denying that it happens isn’t the answer.
There are times when thinking of the suffering of others leads to intelligent action on our part. Then, there are times when all it does is demoralize us. I don’t think that God intends for us to go through life feeling depressed and demoralized.
Paul said - “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh Romans 9:2-3″
Yet he does come across as an energetic and joyful individual for much of the time and the same can be said for many leaders in church history.
We should spread the word where we can. Ultimately, God is sovereign. Someone made the point earlier that it does not depend on us alone. I hope that my relatives will go to heaven. I don’t see any point in speculating beyond that. I know that I will see things clearly in heaven. In the meantime, I can get opportunities to speak from time to time and I can pray - and I don’t even do that as much as I should.
Maybe part of the problem is that sometimes a Pastor might be thinking of people who have grown totally cold and don’t bother being any kind of a witness. Maybe, in trying to motive them, he hits people who are already trying very hard and feeling that they are failing.
I often think of Jesus himself - how many faults he could have mentioned in his disciples, if he wanted to but he didn’t. He does rebuke them from time to time but he cherishes their company. A Pastor should encourage. people.
Comment by: Ir
35 04/28/06 4:39 AM | Comment Link |Paul, I agree that if something is the truth, the answer is not to deny it’s the truth just because we don’t like it.
On the other hand, if a person finds it’s impossible to construct a coherent belief system with both a loving God and hell in, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to conclude that one or both must be misconstrued.
Comment by: Ir
36 04/28/06 4:41 AM | Comment Link |Good you should be angry about it. But please don’t take your anger out on people who ‘knew not what they did’ when they taught it to you. They thought they were doing what was right and best.
Comment by: Julie Marie
37 04/28/06 5:28 AM | Comment Link |*sigh* I know. They are really genuine people with huge hearts and a passionate belief that they are committed to living out. There is so much good there.
and don’t worry, I’m not a person who directs anger outward. I’m an innie ;)
oh - don’t worry about that either. I’ve also learned to let go. Don’t know if I can reconcile all this with my church (I suspect I can’t) but I can forgive, and its not all that hard b/c I do see the genuine concern for people there. And I don’t know everything there is to know. I just know that paradigm doesn’t work for me anymore, on multiple levels.
Comment by: Julie Marie
38 04/28/06 5:40 AM | Comment Link |I moving away from literal hell not because it upsets me (it has upset me for years, but I still believed) I’m moving away because it is not consistent with what I understand about God.
It would be nice to have a fully developed theology to replace the parts I am abandoning, but I don’t. I have to live with that. All I can take is what I do understand now, and trust that I won’t be left fluttering alone. That trust is not blind; I have been blessed with experiences that, difficult though they were, showed me that, indeed, I am in company.
Comment by: Paul O'Driscoll
39 04/28/06 5:45 AM | Comment Link |Fair point. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude that I don’t have the full picture yet - bit like light as waves and particles. Each view might appear to rule out the other but they both seem true. I don’t imagine there’s any worldview that doesn’t have some lack of coherence somewhere.
Even without the doctrine of hell, you might still have problems presenting a loving God from the Bible, history, current affairs, and even your own life. I am sufficiently convinced of the truth of the Scripture to conclude that I know enough to believe. Hopefully, I might know more in heaven but even then I might not know everything. I have to exercise a degree of reasonable faith.
Comment by: Ir
40 04/28/06 6:31 AM | Comment Link |What’s happening to you seems amazingly similar to what happened to me.
By the way, writing to you has actually helped remind me of some things I need to remember. Like not to give up my personal power to pastors ;) (if you understand what I mean by ‘personal power’ - I can’t think how to put it in more Christian terms right now. Hopefully that’s not because there is no such concept in Christianity ;))
So - thanks for sharing so openly where you’re at.
Comment by: Ir
41 04/28/06 6:34 AM | Comment Link |I understand your position. It was mine for a long time. It seems like some Christians stay there their whole lives. I’m not sure why some can and some can’t.
Comment by: Julie Marie
42 04/28/06 7:17 AM | Comment Link |Oh yes, She-Ra in calico knows about personal power :)
It isn’t a concept that translates well into Christianity, does it? Yet Jesus didn’t give away his personal power to the religious establishment. That is something for me to ponder.
Comment by: Julie Marie
43 04/28/06 7:29 AM | Comment Link |you’re welcome. its been helpful to me too :)
Comment by: Ir
44 04/28/06 9:41 AM | Comment Link |Jesus had good boundaries. Better than me, I think :) Do you know the verse…looking it up…hey I found a great translation of it:
(John 2:24-25 NLT) Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew what people were really like. No one needed to tell him about human nature.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
45 04/29/06 11:09 AM | Comment Link |I think ‘personal power’ translates into Christianity just fine. Think ‘integrity’, think ‘confidence in what you know’; put them together and you have it.
I don’t have an intellectual problem with a loving God and hell, because I believe that even God Almighty has certain limits. For example, even God cannot do two mutually exclusive things. Nonsense is still nonsense even if you put God’s name in front of it. So the solution is to see if that principle applies. And I think it does. Let me sketch it out.
God created man to have free will. Free will requires choices between options. God is holy. So, with options, some choices will be between good and evil. That is necessary or there is no free will.
Perhaps less obvious, choices must have consequences. If there are no consequences there is no choice, if there is no choice there is no free will.
So, hell isn’t an optional accessory that God decided to include in creation so that He could vindictively smite those who dared question His will or His character or His existence. Hell is a necessary requirement if He is to give man heaven, if he is to give man freedom of choice.
I view God as so overwhelmingly full of love that He had to have an object for that love. But even God’s love must be requited. So if God was to create at all, if He was to create man to lavish His love upon, if He was to create a heaven where He and man could commune, then He had no choice but to create a world that included the potential for people to make bad choices and to experience the consequences.
Like any of us, but infinitely more so, I have no doubt that it breaks God’s heart to see us make bad choices. But it is impossible for Him to do anything about it, having given us free will. Talk about ‘personal power’! We can stick our finger in God’s eye….but not without the necessary consequences.
My two bits. YMMV.
Comment by: Ir
46 05/1/06 6:24 AM | Comment Link |I might have been thinking more of whether ‘personal power’ translates into some church environments.
I started a thread on that topic on the discussion board called permission.
Comment by: BeKind
47 05/17/06 12:21 AM | Comment Link |I’m wondering if anyone here has actually asked God what He thinks about this style of evangelism. The reason I ask is I learnt how to dialogue with God in February from reading this amazing book (Dialogue With God by Mark Virkler) and I find that God is very encouraging and kind when He speaks to me. I know from the conversations that we have that He would never use these kinds of tactics on people. If any of you want to learn how to have 2-way conversations with God I would highly recommend getting that book. It has really opened my eyes to see that Gid still speaks today.
Comment by: Dee
48 05/17/06 5:03 AM | Comment Link |I think that some churches put pressure on their members to witness like they’re a bad Christian if they’re not out there winning souls for Christ.
But fortunately I had good teaching and was taught to follow Jesus’ example. He genuinely cared for people and they felt loved. He was their friend. In that way he witnessed to them through the way he lived. But he also told them the truth in love. They go hand in hand, but Jesus knew the person and told them about salvation in a way that was sensitive to them as individuals. What one person responds to will be different for the next person.
I think that we are to go with the Holy Spirit’s leading. We don’t have to get them saved. He does that. We’re just to tell them about Jesus when he tells us to. We don’t have to be there from start to finish. Paul said something about how we plant the seed and someone else waters it. We are just responsible for our part. Someone else could take them through the rest.
One last thing and I’ll shut up. :D Prayer is the one thing I think is neglected the most in any situation but especially when it comes to our concern for loved ones we want to see saved. I know that since I started praying for my family, I’ve seen 2 of them accept Jesus. I’m not really doing anything. It’s God. I think we just need to open up the channels of communication more between us and Him. Then he guides our actions and conversation.
Comment by: Terry Wallis
49 05/17/06 5:37 AM | Comment Link |the end does not justify the means. i have done my share of door-knocking and using the bible to paint people into corners. never again. those were some of the worst emotional ordeals of my life.
Comment by: Doug Pollock
50 05/17/06 5:54 AM | Comment Link |Karen,
Thanks for reminding the Christian community again that if we want to see others come to know Jesus then our methods and approaches need to reflect the spirit of Jesus. If you pick up a copy of a book entitled “Irresistible Evangelism” you will find this addressed in chapter 2 under the seven deadly sins of evangelism.
Comment by: Shawn
51 05/17/06 6:42 AM | Comment Link |True evangelism is loving like Jesus loved. Period. Who didn’t Jesus love? We should be the same way.
Comment by: George Lilly
52 05/17/06 7:24 AM | Comment Link |Karen needs to know that the end does not justify the means if the means are not Biblical. It sounds like she was attending a very weak church because there is no such thing as a “neutral service”. Jesus says you are either hot or cold for Him. If you are luke warm, He will “spit you out”. Also, altar calls are not Biblical regardles of Billy Graham or the Baptists.
The one thing that is certain today is that the church is weak, unscholarly and pusilanimous. We are under God’s judgement, as the Scripture warns, “judgement starts in the house of the Lord.
What did John the Baptist and Jesus first say when they started their ministries? Repent, believe and obey!
Comment by: Rev. David Williams
53 05/17/06 7:34 AM | Comment Link |What I always find myself wondering is this:
If faith in Jesus Christ is something that is plainly and inherently good, why do we have to resort to predatory marketing tricks to get people interested? Sure, it works. But Jesus gets pitched like he’s the Way to Firmer Buns, Thighs and Salvation.
I reject that approach uncategorically. That it works is irrelevant. Getting people to come to church for fun and theo-tainment does not guarantee their salvation. Getting people to cling to AmeriChrist, Inc. out of fear of their own damnation or the damnation of their loved ones doesn’t do it, either.
This is, I suppose, why we old-liners are fading.
Comment by: emerging mosaic » Blog Archive » Ethics & Evangelism:what’s acceptable to close the deal
54 05/17/06 8:47 AM | Comment Link |[...] Then I came across this in my email inbox this morning from the eBay atheist » Blog Archive » Ethics and Evangelism Karen posted this on the Off-The-Map discussion board yesterday. There has already been some discussion of it there. I’m bringing it over here too since she’s asking some great questions. Do ethics matter when it comes to evangelism, or do the ends justify the means? When I was an evangelical Christian, I was routinely taught to do pretty much anything necessary in order to “bring someone to Christ.” The idea was that the pit of hell was looming wide, so it was permissible to use many tactics that might be judged unethical in other contexts, in order to get a person saved. This included inviting them to church for a “neutral” service (such as a holiday pageant) that was really planned as an evangelistic event, complete with altar call. I consider that a fairly inoffensive example (though still troubling), but there was also much worse going on, including things that contributed to my leaving Christianity and religion in general. As an example, some friends and I have been chuckling over this evangelism video by actor Kirk Cameron. [...]
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
55 05/17/06 9:30 AM | Comment Link |Whenever I think of evangelism, I recall when I joined boy scouts as a kid. I thought it was fun and liked the advancement system, etc. I talked to other kids and recruited several to join our troop. I could not recruit my brother however, because of his buyer’s resistance. He didn’t want what I was selling just because I was SELLING it. I stopped trying after a while and he missed out on some good times and good lessons.
I just became a Christian a few years ago, I would would like to see my brother become one too. This is not because I am afraid of him going to hell, but because it has been a great experience for me and I want to share it with him too. I am afraid of trying to sell it to him though because I think he will reject it just because I might come on too strong for him. I am like this with other non-believers as well.
I think that honest “evangelism” is a good thing if it is done out of love and not fear.
Comment by: amie
56 05/17/06 11:36 AM | Comment Link |After I left evangelicalism and my Christian college (where I grew to despise these tactics) I took a telefundraising job, and found that I was terrific at it because IT WAS THE SAME outline i had been taught to use as a high school youth group member, just substitute Jesus for, oh, a Gold Circle Level Membership! In youth group, a guy was praised for making up his entire testimony because a guy “got saved” at a mall outreach we were doing. This was a well-rspected church. The deceptive qualities are NOT justified in any way. because just like me, the “joiners” who respond to this crap, will realize that the people who “helped them find the love of Jesus” are lying, hypocritical, shaming, judgemental, uncreative, unloving,unnuanced, fearful, life-hating jerks. NOW that is obviously overgeneralizing — BUT i was a kid was taught that if I was “ashamed” of the gospel I was crucifying Christ again, and basically was used by the church because I was young, cute, and talented and therefore blessed to “bless others.” I lost my ability to think for myself, was isolated from the growing experiences of adolencence, stunted my creativity, and forced to believe things that were really counterintuitive. The idea was that the “philosophers’ are using the worlds wisdom and God’s was better– except that meant whatever THEY decided that was. Love= obedience, not love. Brainwashng. They ruined Jesus for me, and i am still tormented trying to pull him back out of their bullshit. so wish me luck and pray that they don’t send more people to “hell’ with their f***ing tactics (edited by the Web Guy).
Comment by: Tim
57 05/17/06 12:23 PM | Comment Link |Honest evangelism is telling people what you believe — educating them about the tenets of your faith — not trying to trick them into saying a certain prayer. When the ends justify the means, it’s not true evangelism, it’s manipulation, and it’s not the gospel as I know it (”good” news!) that’s being passed on.
Comment by: Ir
58 05/17/06 12:40 PM | Comment Link |amie, wow, I’m sorry to hear you were hurt so much by the church when you were growing up.
Off The Map’s mission (the uncensored version) is “helping Christians not to be jerks”.
Comment by: susan c
59 05/17/06 12:59 PM | Comment Link |What really disturbs me is that Karen was taught to “save” people. If you have an understanding of the Bible, you would know that only God can save. Our commission as set forth in the Bible is to share what God has done in our lives, in love, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. Jesus himself rebuked religion. RELIGION is NOT the answer. JESUS is! It troubles me to see the enemy distorting the image that Jesus portrayed. Many are well intended when they “preach” the fate of sinners, truly wishing for all to accept Jesus as savior and thus escaping the judgement of not doing so. PLEASE if you have any questions about Christianity, READ YOUR BIBLE. . .God teaches us that the only way we can love Him, is because he first loved us. It also teaches that true Christians will not be judgemental, but rather exemplify the love that God is. Karen, dispite the deception you have received from within the walls of Christianity and outside, don’t ever doubt the Jesus LOVES YOU, and Karen, so do I.
Comment by: Peter Young
60 05/17/06 2:09 PM | Comment Link |Hi Karen,
Your question is a good one. Any devious methods of communicating a truth are wrong. So much damage has been done in the name of religion and by some in the church. Jesus was a historical person and must be approached with that in mind. You are talking about religion and misguided zealots and Jesus hated just about everything religious. He never wore robes, but wore the street clothes of his day. He hated the Pharisees
and most of the religious leaders. He denounced insincerity and eveything that wasn’t true. And most of all he represented and demonstrated love to all, and soo many today have misreprented who he was and what he taught. In fact Jesus wasn’t religious and that was one reason he was killed.
Your comments are most understandable. You must search for truth starting at ground zero. May I suggest that you find an Alpha course in a church and take your questions to a safe place where no question is out of order and where your search for truth will be receive with love and understanding.
Comment by: damannion
61 05/17/06 8:35 PM | Comment Link |Depends partially on whom is defining “ethics”.
I went to hear a well-known TV preacher in person recently. He told the 6,000+ people present that since God prompted him to preach on Mark 7:29, if they wanted to receive God’s full blessings, they should bring a check to the stage/altar for $729. I tried not to gasp audibly as DOZENS went up there with their checks. A woman a few rows from me yelled, “I want to believe, I want to believe. Come to me Jesus.” She really thought Christ would come for $729.
This man has apparently brought many to Christ. But his method is certainly not Biblical. Well, not to me. But others quote scripture they say supports this kind of “name it and claim it” theology, which I detest.
In response to Karen C., “PLEASE if you have any questions about Christianity, READ YOUR BIBLE.” That’s never a bad suggestion, but it’s not that easy, really. If it were, we wouldn’t have so many disagreements among Christians about what various passages mean. And which Bible?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
62 05/17/06 11:03 PM | Comment Link |Thank you for noticing
Comment by: Lisa
63 05/18/06 10:52 AM | Comment Link |damannion said,
This makes me sick to my stomach. I’m pretty sure it is not what Jesus had in mind.
Comment by: LeslieAnn
64 05/18/06 9:01 PM | Comment Link |May 18, 2006
Jesus never manipulated anyone; He is my example. When I first met Jesus I told everyone about him; it was like being in love. I sang His praises because I’d experienced the first real love I’d ever known. If I was obnoxious, and I may have been, it was unintentional. I later went to a narrow, legalistic Bible college (for a very short time!) They taught me I had to button-hole people and cold-turkey witness to people…”If you were to die tonight, where would you go”? It was horrible; I hated doing it and it was one reason I dropped out - thankfully. But it left me feeling guilty and fearful. It was many years before I found my way out of that darkness into a real way of “sharing” about relationship to God through Jesus. Sharing is the operative word - not manipulating, guilt-jerking, arguing, coercing. I despise any way of communicating with others that is deceptive, manipulative. Jesus respected everyone he spoke to, no matter who they were, except religious people who used God to gain power over people.
I’ve been a believer for 34 years. I’ve seen good, bad and indifferent examples of believers; I’ve been, at times, a good, bad or indifferent example myself. I have made many mistakes and missteps. But here is my bottom line - I have gone to bad doctors, mechanics, dentists, churches, but I didn’t stop going to doctors, mechanics, etc, because I still need the services they are supposed to offer. I still go to church and spend time with believers even though I’ve been hurt by some terrible “representatives” of God’s kingdom. Jesus is so awesome, sweet, good, powerful, loving and kind. I live to become like him. Someday I hope I bring tears of pride and joy to his eyes as I learn to live and love like him.
Karen and all others offended by those of us who say we represent Christ, but don’t, I apologise to you. I am so sorry you have been hurt and disgusted.
Sincerely,
LeslieAnn
Comment by: damannion
65 05/19/06 10:29 AM | Comment Link |Wow, that’s an awesome way to put it! My friend says when she visits different congregations, “Take the meat and leave the bone.”
doreen
Comment by: Pastor David Peters
66 05/25/06 4:31 PM | Comment Link |As a pastor in a local church I get to attend lots of community groups. Local Precinct Committee, School Parents and Citizens committees, etc etc. What interests me is that people are people wherever you find them, and the sorts of things they do to advance their own particular cause are all pretty similar. Sadly this mindset just follows people in to the church. People just import their strategies into the fabric of their christianity.
So what’s the difference between a church and any other group? One thing and one thing alone - a relationship with God himself. No, I’m not being esoteric. Think about the simpicity and excitement of this new discovery upon your first encounter Jesus. Not the people, Jesus. After many years of being a Christian myself I am convinced this simple excitement and genuine relationship with God which started us off should be our constant experience. Any anything which dampens this - as Karen’s and others here has - should be a warning bell. Not an exit door to the relationship, just a warning bell.
Jesus comments are revealing:
Everything we do should spring from a relationship with God. Christians get sucked in to the DOING. Jesus wants the doing that springs from a relationship, not a marketing plan. I encourage Karen, and others similarly disallusioned, to abandon the strategies and deception prevalent in mainstream christianity. But don’t throw the baby out with the proverbial. Lose the hype and manufactured marketing by all means, but don’t lose the person. He is worth it.
Pastor David, Ourimbah, Australia
Comment by: Andrew Rigg
67 06/12/06 7:11 AM | Comment Link |I am a little disturbed by some of the self righteous remarks made by a number of the posters above.
We are currently in the middle of a cultural shift and this has to be recognised/noted. We are moving (the church is really in the process of “catching up” to the rest of the world) from modernism to post-modernism. The approach Kirk and his mate are taking is the old fashioned propositional approach - and it worked (still does in some places too and certainly has merit in terms of being prepared as per 1 Peter 3:16 and answering peoples questions further on down the road).
I agree - it isn’t the best way to approach evangelism at the outset with a whole bunch of propositional statements but I don’t think the pious self-righteous attitudes exuded by a number of posters to this blog are warranted either.
I say this as a fan of Jim and Ordinary Acts etc. But I have to say that I was dissapointed by the content above.
Let’s lift the bar guys - there is a heart of gold at the centre of this whole issue - stay focussed on that and the church will most definitely benefit.
Comment by: Jason Upham
68 01/28/08 4:25 PM | Comment Link |I agree with Andrew.
Only two things will last forever: The Word of God and people’s souls. I try (sometimes fail) to “go around doing good” like Jesus did. Then, I humbly tell people about Jesus and let God do the rest. When I do it in the Spirit, I’m fulfilling a promise given to us — I’m experiencing an ascended, abundantly full life following Christ. It’s the power of God’s great grace compelling me to let people in on what I have come to know. It’s wonderful. I think that’s about it. This is a great blog, by the way! Thanks.