Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 08.09.2006 /
I posted this short video about evangelism on the doable evangelism blog last Friday:
It was originally made to be shown in a church but has since been uploaded to youtube.com.
I’m curious to know what atheists think of the video.
The producer of it, Jerry, (who has no connection with Off The Map) has been responding to comments about the video. I’ll let him know I’m posting it over here too.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: David S
1 08/9/06 11:22 PM | Comment Link |Atheists aren’t really the audience, but…
It looked well produced and professional. The people seemed genuine. I didn’t like the southern preacher at the end though, that broke with the style and was cliche in a bad way.
Comment by: Ir
2 08/10/06 6:34 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your response, David.
Of course you’re right that atheists weren’t the original target audience. But it affects atheists because it’s Christians saying things to other Christians about how to relate to people who aren’t Christians, including atheists.
So I wondered how atheists feel about what is said/implied in that regard, in the video.
I should perhaps have been clearer about that in the blog entry. On the other hand I think I’ve only just realized I’m curious what atheists think about the video because it indirectly affects atheists by encouraging Christians in certain behaviors towards atheists.
Comment by: David S
3 08/10/06 7:20 AM | Comment Link |In regards to evangelism, I thought it was a fairly standard message and so didn’t mention it. The same sort of message is preached from pulpets across America. I guess I just assume that’s how it is and I don’t think much about it.
Comment by: Siamang
4 08/10/06 10:36 AM | Comment Link |My reaction is that it’s very well made, and effective. I would second the comment about the screaming preacher. It’s jarring in a quiet piece like this. The entire thing is quiet, still, contemplative, moving, and intimate. To have a preacher at a pulpit is strange and discontinuous. To have him shout is really odd. It looks like someone took over the station and jammed in a message from another church! If you want to include the preacher, have him sit in his casual clothes in the seats in the auditorium and have him speak in the same genuine warm conversational style of the rest of the interviewees.
As an atheist, I don’t have much of a particular reaction… I kind of expect that this kind of video is pretty normal for evangelical churches.
For the sake of interest, I wondered what an atheist parody of that might look like… same people sitting in seats, same beautiful music. People lovingly and warmly talking about atheism.
I just think about those things as being things atheists don’t have… videos like this. And what would that be like in some alternate universe where atheists felt called-on to spread the “bad news.”
Oh, and from a professional standpoint, I don’t dig the logo at the end with the old-film look and rock and roll. It’s not only jarring, it sends kind of an amateur tone to something that without it feels much slicker.
Comment by: M Wms
5 08/10/06 11:18 AM | Comment Link |As a Christian (sorry!), I was turned off by it. The overall message of the video for me was that people in the community who are not Christians are “those people” and “them.”
Some phrases and words that really grated were putting on armor to go out in the community (to do battle with “those people” and their demons?);
“divine appointment” (I don’t see God as making appts.); being available to God’s kingdom; “gathering up the homeless” …
The message I heard was that Christians are givers, while “those people” are takers and beneficiaries. It felt like Christians think they’re one-up on others.
I consider myself an evangelical Christian, but to me this just feels like people feeling virtuous about do-gooding.
Begs the question, what do “those people” have to offer “us”?
Comment by: Ir
6 08/10/06 12:22 PM | Comment Link |M Wms - no problem about you being a Christian :). Your comments are very welcome too! I specified ‘atheists’ here because I had already asked for general comments over on doable evangelism. I’m not sure atheists read that blog, hence the request here. But I’m fine with Christians jumping in here, also.
Siamang thanks for your comments. Interesting to think about an ‘atheist’ version…I did post a video clip of ‘atheist church’ on CatE a few weeks ago (I’m not sure if you saw it). I thought it parodied some aspects of church quite well. It’s in this blog entry (If you have comments on ‘atheist church’ go ahead and post them on that CatE blog entry instead of here so these comments can stay focused on the evangelism video)
Comment by: Siamang
7 08/10/06 1:15 PM | Comment Link |Yes, I saw that video. I was thinking that something like this… warm and fuzzy… would be kind of eye-opening in a “wow, that’s a different perspective” kind of way. Not sure it would be funny, but maybe merely surprising.
Comment by: Karen
8 08/10/06 1:17 PM | Comment Link |I used to edit my mega-church’s monthly magazine. I always found it very frustrating because of the “Christian-ese” rampant in the text. Sometimes it was so thick you really couldn’t figure out what was meant (and, frankly, sometimes they liked it that way!)
But I see it in this video also. It’s almost like there’s another language that Christians use when they’re in church or talking to each other that’s a blend of niceties and scriptural references or allusions. But this is not the way “ordinary” people talk - or the way these people might talk if they were trying to convey information to a non-insider audience.
It’s probably mostly unconscious on their part, but I find that I can spot an evangelical after no more than a couple phrases come out of her mouth.
Comment by: Ir
9 08/10/06 2:06 PM | Comment Link |Karen, funny that Eliza posted a blog entry about Christianese on CatE today! I see you’ve found that now.
I noticed the Christianese in the video too. I guess since it’s for church people I can’t argue that they should have tried to avoid Christianese. On the other hand I hope that all Christians including those watching the video will realize that connecting with people works much better if you can speak their own language.
Siamang - yes, I see what you mean about ‘warm and fuzzy’.
Comment by: David S
10 08/10/06 3:16 PM | Comment Link |The “Christian lingo” thing is definitely there. It’s one reason why it’s immediately clear Christians are the audience. It’s a colloquial way of speaking that some Christian groups use to be identified by and to identify others of their group. Christians don’t talk that way in normal conversations to “regular” people. Lots of groups have their own way of speaking within the group.
If you’re ever making a video for a non-Christian audience you want to drop the lingo though. It just tells people they’re not in the group.
Comment by: Jerry
11 08/10/06 4:13 PM | Comment Link |Hi everyone!
Thanks for your opinions on the video. I have enjoyed reading them. You all have some excellent points. I won’t bore everyone with deatiled responses as I answered much of the same thing over at the doable evangelism site.
I would like to speak to the jargon issue. I bugs me to hear Christians use tired cliches or try to put on a church-face that they wouldn’t use outside of their church. However, in some cases, I believe that it can be helpful to have a “jargon” if it helps you put complex theological concepts into easier to understand terms. To me, it’s all in the heart of the speaker, whether they are being genuine or whether it is affected for whatever reason. Computer geeks have jargon, astrophysicists have jargon, chefs, dog groomers, doctors, lawyers, and sanitations engineers all have a jargon they use with each other that they don’t use with those outside their field. Is that wrong? Does that make them phony? Just a thought.
Anyway, I am enjoying the dialog and I am excited that something we did played a part in it. Thanks for the opportunity!
Jerry
Comment by: Eliza
12 08/11/06 12:14 AM | Comment Link |The facial expressions struck me - especially the lady in pink, had what I thought of as an “unholy gleam” in her eye - but given the topic, it probably was actually a “holy gleam”! :) Anyway, it was a look I hoped was only due to the topic and the intensity of her feelings, and not one she had on when she was out in the larger community.
Re jargon - when “professionals” (the groups listed by Jerry) use jargon, don’t their terms usually differ? Acronyms, Latin terms, fancy scientific terms…whereas Christian jargon strikes me as different in using regular English words, with a special meaning. Armor, body, bread - those were some used in this video.
Comment by: Ir
13 08/11/06 6:18 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, I’m glad you mentioned that. I don’t want to say anything mean about that lady - she might be a wonderful person for all I know. But that gleam in her eyes did creep me out a bit too - I can’t really relate, maybe, to being that happy all the time ;)
Excellent point about ‘jargon’ also!
Comment by: Ir
14 08/11/06 6:21 AM | Comment Link |Jerry, thanks for venturing over here to respond to the comments. I understand you not wanting to repeat here what you already said on the other blog.
For those who asked why the clips of the pastor preaching were in the video and/or said they didn’t fit, etc - here is Jerry’s response on the other blog about why he included them:
Why I included the clips of the pastor preaching
Comment by: Mike O
15 08/11/06 7:03 AM | Comment Link |I thought it was great. I’m a Christian, and for a Christian audience it got the message across. I’ve also posted to the discussion over on doable evangelism, but to the jargon issue, when you make a video or something for a particular audience, you tailor it to that audience. The audience for that video was their own church, likely a church that speaks in those terms. So there is no problem using their own jargon to speak amongst themselves.
To the language vs special meanings, etc, I think we all know that Christianity is a completely different culture, I think as different as the urban culture is from suburban. Rappers use english words with different meanings because it appeals to that audience. Nope, nothing wrong there.
Finally, is it somehow hypocritical to use one jargon in church and another in the general public? How could it be? Any communication expert will tell you that when you communicate, you must do it in a way that appeals to the audience. That’s not hypocritical, it’s smart. Take, for example, English as a 2nd language people (ESL). ESL may speak spanish or Russian at home, but in the workplace they’re better off speaking English. Likewise, just because English is more globally acceptable in the general public, we would never expect them to speak only English in their own home if that’s not their native language … unless they had guests.
Often times (hopefully) churches have guests, so the Christianese should be kept to a minimum even in church. But that has nothing to do with the fact that we Christians do have a language of our own because we see things from a different perspective than everyone else, just as northerners see things differently than southerners or city folk see things differently than country folk. We would be wise to minimize the Christianese in the presence of guests that don’t understand it, but the guests should also at least acknowledge the Christian’s right to see things from a Christian perspective. That’s what any good guest would do.
The only other option would be for us Christians to pretend we don’t speak Christian at all … speak non-Christian as their first language … when that’s neither true nor reasonable to expect from us. Now that would be hypocritical.
Comment by: Ir
16 08/11/06 7:47 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your response, Mike.
I agree.
The problem, based on my experience, is that Christians often don’t stop talking in Christianese/Christian jargon when they’re talking to unchurched people.
If discouraging Christians from talking Christianese to each other would discourage them from using it with unchurched people then I would definitely like to see it discouraged.
If Christians truly can switch out of jargon when they talk to unchurched people then I would find it hard to argue that there’s anything wrong with using it with each other. But the evidence I see makes me wonder if they really can switch in and out of it. Because if they can, why don’t they? What’s the point of speaking to someone in a language they don’t know? How is it reasonable to expect the other person to ‘pick the language up’ because you won’t speak their language?
Comment by: Mike O
17 08/11/06 8:02 AM | Comment Link |True enough, but it’s a matter of effectiveness, not right and wrong. You’re right, Church people struggle with it, but they are struggling with it, so that’s good. To your question “if they can, why don’t they?” It’s still a bit of a news-flash to us that we speak a different language than the general public, so please, we’re working on it … at least some of us are.
And to your question, “”how is it reasonable to expect the other person to pick the language up because you won’t speak their language” I couldn’t agree more. It frustrates me that many Christians still don’t get that point. But again, we’re learning. Mostly I just want to undo the idea that seems to be here that it’s hypocritical to speak one way in church and another on the street. It’s not … it’s who we are and we haven’t quite mastered the skill yet.
Comment by: David S
18 08/11/06 9:52 AM | Comment Link |Just to clarify, I don’t think the Christian lingo is wrong or hypocritical. There’s nothing wrong with a group having it’s own terms and language style.
Though people outside the group might hear it a different way than people in the group. For example to me it mostly sounds silly. It’d be tough for me to take someone seriously who spoke that way. In a way it’s similar to the goofy stylized language you hear from the vampire or medieval role-playing groups.
Comment by: Julie Marie
19 08/11/06 10:02 AM | Comment Link |sometimes the problem with christianese is that it is imprecise (as opposed to medical jargon which can become excruciatingly precise) and rather than promote clarity it muddies the issues, at times.
Comment by: Jerry
20 08/11/06 10:08 AM | Comment Link |I would agree with that up to a point. But I think we’re in very great danger of making sweeping generalizations about a group of people as diverse as any can be. When we say “Christians” here, are you referring to every Christian everywhere on the entire planet, or just the ones you come in contact with. I would wager you are surrounded by believers everyday that treat you kindly and with respect that you aren’t even aware of. But because the handful of obnoxious ones are so vocal, we tend to make a generalization. I think if we heard these same kinds of generalizations made about black, Hispanics, Jews, or gays we would be outraged. So easy on the sterotyping. I don’t automatically assume every atheist is like Madeline Murray O’Hare (now there is an obnoxious atheist! :-))
The woman’s name in question is Joy. She comes from a very rough background and has undergone an amazing life change. That “unholy gleam” is probably due to her experience of finding out that she was loved and treasured by God rather than the ugly, worthless nobody she had been told she was her whole life.
Could it be that it seemed “unholy” to you because you wanted it to seem that way? Is it possible that you brought a certain prejudice and presupposition to the video rather than an open mind? There seems to be a general assumption that if a Christian wants to share their faith that they have some sinister ulterior motive. It could just simply be that Joy has undergone such a radical life change that she is genuinely passionate to share it with others who may be hurting as she once did.
Lastly, I want to respond to Eliza’s comment:
Armor, body, and bread are not Christian jargon. Nor are they strictly scriptural allusion - although if they were that would be reason enough for a Christian to use them regularly and without apology. They are metaphors which are common to all literature in all cultures in all generations.
That scripture is the inspired word of God is an essential Christian doctrine — it’s one of the things that defines us as Christians. Apart from it, we know nothing about God beyond what we could speculate with our finite human minds. So when a Christians uses language derived from it, even when speaking to someone outside the faith, I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it can go way overboard and alienate the listener. I get that. But I think it would be foolish to say it should never happen and that Christians should somehow be ashamed of their Christianity.
Evangelism implies that you have something to say. If you never say it, or if all you have to say is human wisdom then there is no need for Christianity. You can get that from a thousand other belief systems. It seems that on these forums there are a lot of Christians who are apologizing for being a believer. Why? Just an observation. I’d be interested in what you all think about that.
Comment by: Mike O
21 08/11/06 10:35 AM | Comment Link |A couple of things are interesting to me here:
1) The atheists were generally objective and kind, only mentioning the preacher that they didn’t care for, but overall they thought it was well done.
2) The Christians (other than Jerry and myself) found fault.
3) This is really interesting — The Christians and Ir had an issue with the Christianese, not the atheists. Then once it was said, everyone jumped on the bandwagon
4) Helen only said “good point” when someone said something critical.
5) Since Jerry and I posted, where have all the atheists gone? I am genuinely interested in what you think about the Christians posting here and whether or not you understand our viewpoint. And this is not a smart-alecky question - I’m genuinely asking - How do you think a Christian should respond in conversation like this? Have we been reasonable?
Comment by: Karen
22 08/11/06 1:30 PM | Comment Link |Since I’m the one that pointed up the Christianese in the video, originally, I’ll take a shot at responding, Mike O.
My impetus for mentioning the language difference was simply because we atheists were asked for our observations and that one struck me very strongly in watching the video. I am a former conservative evangelical, so not only do I understand Christian-ese, I used to speak it! ;-)
In terms of understanding your viewpoint, obviously I do. I was where you are at for many years, so it’s not tough for me to understand where you are coming from.
But to be perfectly honest with you, when I was a Christian, I realized I was speaking “insider lingo” with other believers and it always felt kind of phony to me. Why was there a need for one vocabulary in church and another outside? Yes, it was easy to use certain phrases and scriptural allusions that I knew other Christians would understand, but it also felt a bit like a sloppy shortcut and a way to define myself as being “in the club.” Something about that bothered me then and it still bothers me now, I guess. There’s an exclusivity there that needlessly shuts out others.
I’m also a writer, and so at heart I am constantly striving to say things in the plainest, most straight-forward and inclusive way possible. If we don’t do that, we miss the main point, which is good communication.
The other thing I would observe, and it happens both here and on the DB, is that some Christian posters seem to get very defensive when an atheist makes an observation. It doesn’t even have to be an outright criticism (as I don’t think mine was), just a comment in the discussion that points out something about Christianity. I’ve seen Christians almost over-respond - as if the atheist had said something overtly negative. (This happened to me on the DB recently, so it’s fresh in my mind.)
I’m not sure why it happens. There may be an element of Christians feeling they need to “defend the faith” - or maybe just hearing observations from atheists is a new experience for some Christians and they hit home as criticisms even if they weren’t meant that way?
Comment by: Ir
23 08/11/06 1:32 PM | Comment Link |Mike O. wrote:
I’m a little confused by this because, looking at both sets of blog entry comments, I’ve seen a number of good comments from Christians; and I’ve seen both Christians and atheists say “well done; not sure that the preacher part fits”.
This might be a) because church people care more about seeing things that bother them about church than atheists b) it might just be - as often happens in discussions - that once one person has said something, others are more willing to come forth and say “Actually I felt that way too”.
Again I’m confused because I looked and the only “good point” I could find on either thread was in a comment by Jerry.
Fridays are often quiet. I expect the atheists will be back.
I’m a bit confused by this some of this latest post of yours - I tried to be specific about where. I don’t think you’ve been unreasonable; it’s rather that some of your points don’t seem to line up with my own observatinos.
Comment by: Ir
24 08/11/06 1:59 PM | Comment Link |Jerry, I usually put some in front of ‘Christian’ when I write about patterns of behavior I’ve observed among [evangelical] Christians. To clarify that I don’t mean every Christian. As you pointed out, I can’t comment on every Christian because I don’t know all of them. If I came across as overgeneralizing/stereotyping Christians I apologize.
Comment by: Mike O
25 08/11/06 8:10 PM | Comment Link |Karen said, “I’ve seen Christians almost over-respond - as if the atheist had said something overtly negative. (This happened to me on the DB recently, so it’s fresh in my mind.)
I’m not sure why it happens. There may be an element of Christians feeling they need to “defend the faith” - or maybe just hearing observations from atheists is a new experience for some Christians and they hit home as criticisms even if they weren’t meant that way?
“
Thanks for that. That could be.
Ir, thanks for that, too. I guess we don’t see it the same way. OK by me.
Comment by: Eliza
26 08/11/06 9:02 PM | Comment Link |I had to go to work :)
I peeked in on CatE briefly from time to time, between patients, but was too busy to cruise through all of the OTM boards :(
Jerry, thanks for the background on Joy. I’m glad she has experienced such a positive turn in her life. I watched the video partway through without sound at first, not wanting to wake our houseguests with some unexpected sounds at midnight - whether those sounds were Christian or atheist or music or whatnot. That may be why her “look” struck me so much. I’m not quite sure how to respond to your suggestion that I attribute some sinister motive to her, other than to say I believe I was just commenting honestly on what it seemed like I was seeing. (BTW, I liked how touched she was that the homeless man was reading the Bible she’d given him, the next time she saw him. I can’t imagine any item I could give someone in that situation that might mean so much to them.)
They’re not commonly used metaphors in the subculture I circulate in! They are common words (armor less than the other 2), the meaning of which kind of confuses me when I hear them spoken in “Christian” context. The one man said something like, ‘We are the body of Christ’ - and I’ve read the scripture that comes from - but it still jars me to hear it, and I can’t really picture what it means. But, since this was intended for a Christian audience, it doesn’t really matter that I understand what he meant…unless he and I get into a conversation, outside the church!
Comment by: Ir
27 08/12/06 6:30 AM | Comment Link |Mike wrote:
Ok, fair enough.
Comment by: Ian
28 08/12/06 2:26 PM | Comment Link |Well..the video was nice and warm and fuzzy so I guess it was successful . One part I didn`t care for was the lady talking proudly about giving a homeless person a bible. If I was that homeless person , I would probably say thank you and then walk to a used book store to sell it and get some cash to feed myself. Unless the pages are made of pasta or something, a book such as the bible can`t do much to get the starving fed . That’s my cold hearted atheist take on it. :)
Comment by: Eliza
29 08/12/06 4:06 PM | Comment Link |Ian - she said she saw him some time later reading the Bible she had given him - so while my response would have been similar to yours, it sounds like that homeless person appreciated it more than you or I might have. (Unless he was reading the OT parts about the animal sacrifices, and the NT parts about the loaves and fish, with his belly grumbling and his mouth watering, wishing he had something to eat… :(
Comment by: Ir
30 08/12/06 6:29 PM | Comment Link |Yes - to be fair I’m not sure Joy would have told that story if she hadn’t seen the man reading the Bible later, which indicated that he appreciated the gift.
Comment by: Eliza
31 08/13/06 6:59 PM | Comment Link |Right. I apologize for being so flip, using “unholy” to describe her gaze & making fun of the homeless man’s use of the Bible. The word “unholy” doesn’t really have negative connotations for me, but I’m sure it must for many people. As I said before, it really was heartwarming to see her pleasure in sharing that she’d later seen the man reading the Bible she’d given him.