Posted by Mike O on: 08.23.2007 /
In his book, I’m OK, You’re not, John Shore makes a fairly pointed observation to Christians about the message we’re really sending.
The Great Commission in a nutshell says, “Go into all the world and make disciples” (convert non-believers into Christians), and The Great Commandment says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But what happens when you put them together? John shore says:
So, as far as I can tell, the two Big Messages of our Lord, taken together, amount to, “Love everyone, Christian or not - but if they’re not Christian, do what you can to change that.”
In other words, love non-Christians - but desire that they change.
Um.If someone said to you, “I love you - but I want you to change the very essence of who you are,” would you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, or…not exactly?
I haven’t actually read the entire book yet, but immediately after reading this excerpt, I ordered it.
I’m totally just an Average Layperson, for sure - but I’m pretty sure that’s all anyone needs to be in order to know that Christ gave His followers two Colossal Directives: the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, right? The former, of course, tells us (in so many words) to do our best to try to convert nonbelievers into Christians (”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20); the latter (after “Love the Lord your God with all your heart .”) enjoins us to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37)
So, as far as I can tell, the two Big Messages of our Lord, taken together, amount to, “Love everyone, Christian or not - but if they’re not Christian, do what you can to change that.”
In other words, love non-Christians - but desire that they change.
Um.If someone said to you, “I love you - but I want you to change the very essence of who you are,” would you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, or…not exactly? It’s like saying, “I absolutely, utterly, and without qualification love that painting; I wish it was a sea anemone.” How can both be true? How can you really love what something is, and at the same time desire it to be something other than what it is? Isn’t it true that if it’s our profound desire that any given nonbeliever change (and especially if we want them to undergo a transformation as radical as the one from non-Christian to Christian), then the best we can do is love the idea of who we think they would be if they became someone radically different from the person they are? (And thus do I prove that every day, normal people can be just as confusing as Brainy Theologians.) But we cannot truly love the non-believer as they are when we find them, because love comprises not only genuine affection, but also respect and acceptance.
What’s certainly true - and what certainly deserves celebration - is the degree to which we Christians have, in fact, always Harkened Mightily to the call of the Great Commission. So winning, in fact, have been their/our efforts in that noble enterprise that just about the only people in America today who don’t know a fair amount about Jesus - who don’t at least know that he was God on earth, performed miracles, sacrificed himself to atone for our sins, and rose from the dead - are people who have never known more than, say, ten other people - and who also don’t have a television, never listen to the radio, never read, and never go to the movies.
Which amounts to just about no one at all.
I think that here in the great, gospel-saturated U.S. of A, it’s time to shift our concentration from fulfilling the Great Commission to fulfilling the Great Commandment.I do want to be clear about the caveat, though, of “only” meaning that we should ease off trying to tell people about Christ who haven’t first asked us to tell them about Christ. If someone has indicated to us that they’re open to hearing the Good News, then by all means let us share until we’re hoarse (or until it’s clear they’d like us to go home so that they can go to bed). By extension, then, I’m also not in any way meaning to suggest that preachers should stop preaching, or that stadium-filling Billy Graham-style revival meetings should stop happening. Of course they shouldn’t. Because again: those kinds of public or corporate affairs are presented to people who have asked to participate in them, who have willingly volunteered to hear the word of God. Such people are fair game - and have at ‘em then, I say! Praise the Lord, and save me a front row seat.
So you see what I’m saying: If someone, of their own accord, has opened the door to Christ, of course it’s our treasured obligation to usher the Lord right on in (and to then quickly step aside and try not to talk too much). But if the person we’d like to convert hasn’t opened that door themselves, then we need to stop huffing, and puffing, and trying to blow their door down anyway.
Because what I think is now officially Working Against Us All is that entirely-too-common dynamic wherein a Christian and a non-Christian get together, and neither of them can relax at all, because the Christian is always (at whatever level) wondering how he can convert the non-Christian, and the non-Christian is always (at whatever level) dreading the inevitable moment when the Christian starts trying to do that very thing.
Back before I was a Christian, whenever I had a conversation with a Christian I was always just waiting for the moment they’d start trying to convert me. And that moment inevitably arrived. Sometimes the attempt was subtle (”So, do you go to any kind of church or anything?”); sometimes it was overt (”So, have you heard the word of the Lord?”); sometimes it was just plain scary (”So, do you know you need to repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your personal savior if you don’t want to spend all of eternity burning in hell?”). But always, it arrived.
Not particularly good for the Great Commission - and not doing a lot for the Great Commandment, either. It’s not good for the Great Commission because it simply doesn’t work: a person on the receiving end of the message who hears that in order to become a better person, he or she needs to undergo a radical transformation is generally inspired to do nothing so much as hightail it away from the messenger. And it’s not good for the Great Commandment, either, since once an evangelizer and his or her would-be Christian have split up, their relationship is finished…and it’s just not possible to love someone with whom you have no relationship at all.
The bottom line is that no matter how artfully we put it, or how passionately or sincerely we mean them well, when we convey to an unbeliever the message that they really need to become Christian, the only thing they can possibly understand us to be saying - the only thing we’d hear if were we in their shoes - is that we’re okay, and that they most definitely are not.
We’re great; they’re on their way to perdition.
A message not exactly cockle-warming to hear. Which is why unbelievers, as we all know, never listen to it for very long at all.
Comment by: John Shore
1Hey, guys. I’m the author of “I’m OK–You’re Not.” Thanks for the love here. I’ve been poking about on your site, and am very excited (um … but in a good way)about what I see here. If there’s anything you can think of that I could do to help you in your refreshingly … sane, clearly compassionate mission, don’t hesitate to drop me a line. Thanks.
Comment by: Stephan
2Ok, that’s a little strange - Mike mentions an author, and the author immediately chimes in and says he has been reading our stuff here. I’m curious, John - have you been here a while or did you just Google yourself and find this item?
I don’t think that loving someone and wanting them to change are mutually exclusive. I love my kids, but they have some very annoying tendencies (which I’m sure they got from their mother) that I would like to see change. I want them to continue to grow and mature. I certainly would not want them to remain exactly as they are for the rest of their lives.
I think it lies in the motivation. If you truly love someone you want the best for them. If you are a Christian you believe that a relationship with Christ is the best thing a person can have. I know the Great Commission has been abused, and the Great Commandment has largely been ignored, but I think we can still do both.
Comment by: Mike O
3Well how ’bout that!
Um, free copy??? :)
Of course I’m kidding … how long have you been poking around?
Comment by: Mike O
4I think it comes down to the positioning we do, and the difference between what we say and what others hear.
You wouldn’t say “I’m OK, you’re not” to your kids. At least not in the way intended by the title of the book (IMO). But even if what you’re saying is true, Stephen, and I think it is, the message that’s being delivered is “I love you so that you’ll become something different,” and when you’re not dealing with someone under your authority (your kids, for example), that always spins wrong. Even though it may be there, it doesn’t come across as unconditional love.
Comment by: Stephan
5Good point, Mike. I guess wanting someone to change has to have one of the following qualifiers in order to be appropriate:
1. Someone who wants to change.
2. Someone who you are so intimate with that you can communicate with them on that level.
Naturally that is a very small number of people in my life. Part of the result of following the Great Commandment is to increase those numbers. Notice I did not say that is the goal - that would be opportunistic and crass - serving people in order to change them. I am not advocating that. But it is often the result that people whom you serve can become closer friends and want to emulate your servant attitude.
Comment by: John Shore
6No, I had no idea you guys were here at all; I just, as you say, did a Technorati blog search on my name this morning, and … there you were! And then … there I was.
On the child-as-nonbeliever metaphor: I not long ago wrote a piece called “Adults Aren’t Children, And None of Us is God.” It’s here:
http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/adults-arent-children-and-none-of-us-is-god/
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7This is precisely why gay people don’t exactly start celebrating when Christians who want them to stop being gay show up.
Comment by: Mike O
8I just followed the link to your blog and read about your Chrissie Hynde encounter … how come I never have sweet dreams like that??
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
9Welcome to the eBay atheist blog, John - thanks for commenting here :)
John, Christians who talk about non-believers as children also tend to talk about themselves as children - so I don’t see that as an example of setting themselves up as ’superior’ to nonbelievers. Rather, it’s an example of them using a metaphor non-believers have trouble relating to. I see that as a different problem from the “I’m ok, you’re not” problem. What do you think?
Comment by: Karen
10Great stuff, John! I love it that someone finally made that link. :-)
As a conservative evangelical for 30 years (now an atheist) I can say the churches I attended paid a WHOLE lot more attention to the Great Commission than they did to the Great Commandment. They were not treated as two equal, let alone opposing, goals.
Money, time, and huge amounts of effort were put into the Great Commission - not so much was done to help us fulfill the Great Commandment.
My question: Why do you think Jesus would issue two seemingly opposing commandments? Is it possible to truly do both things? In my experience, there weren’t a heck of a lot of people that came up of their own volition to ask about my faith. Maybe one or two in 30 years. If I wanted to witness, I had to be the assertive party, which as you point out, usually didn’t do a lot of good for the “loving and respecting them” part of the relationship.
Comment by: Mike O
11Well, it’s good to have you! Poke around a bit … I think you’ll be intrigued by what’s been created here. Atheists and Christians actually talking to each other … what a novel idea.
Comment by: Siamang
12Great find, Mike!
It’s interesting to think about how many different people are coming to the conclusion that the meaning of the word “evangelism” needs an update.
Comment by: Westy
13I would say though, often when we’re on the receiving end of what feels like onerous advice and/or criticism, if it turns out to be correct, we are appreciative.
While we may resent it while we don’t understand it, when we finally do, we’re glad for what started that seeking process.
I don’t think the definition of love means only doing what the other person will be happy with or receive well. If Christianity is true, it is ultimately more loving to try to show someone the truth, whether they’re happy about hearing it or not.
Comment by: Siamang
14Westy,
Assuming for a moment that there is no god, and atheism is true, do you really want me showing up at your door at 8am selling subscriptions to Skeptic magazine?
I mean, some of these discussions I find to be partially pragmatic. Given that Christians would really LIKE to turn people on to Christ, what’s the most likely way that that might happen: streetcorner witnessing, or living as a good example in Christ? Being in the world and doing good.
If I tell someone a message that I want them to hear, and they turn off it because I pissed them off, how really have I helped my cause?
Comment by: Eliza
15Karen said:
Anyone (esp Christians) want to take a stab at Karen’s question?
I, a never-Christian, read the New Testament & am struck that Jesus himself repeatedly seems to follow the Great Commandment (esp among outsiders) rather than the Great Commission…but others may see it differently. (His “commission” work seems IMO to be mostly among the disciples, & maybe the Pharisees, in a way, by pointing out their failings.)
Comment by: Mike O
16I will … but not right away. Zack’s moving to college today so I’m a little pre-occupied (glad, sad, proud, worried, choose your emotion but mostly PROUD!). But yeah, I’ll take a stab at it maybe this evening??
Comment by: Stephan
17And while you’re pondering Karen’s question, I have one too.
Why would my doctor tell me to eat right and exercise. I can’t do them both at the same time. It gets really messy. And eating adds weight, while exercise reduces weight. They seem opposed to each other. Why would my doctor tell me to do two such contradictory things. Maybe my doctor doesn’t really exist. Maybe there are no doctors.
Comment by: Laura M.
18LOL, Stephan !!
Maybe you’re right Stephan, maybe your doctor doesn’t really exist.
Or maybe he does, but he’s just not perfect.
If he were perfect, he would be perfectly capable of getting you to understand why and how you need to do both.
Now if you insist your doctor is perfect, despite the fact that he doesn’t make sure you perfectly understand all
of his instructions….
I might decide the correct solution is that your doctor can’t possibly exist.
Comment by: Stephan
19…but…
What if my doctor is perfect, but I am not. No matter how hard he tries to make me understand, I might not get it because I do not know all that he does. Maybe his goal is to slowly make me understand, knowing that I will probably never totally get there. Maybe he knows I’ll do the best I can to do what he says, because I realize he knows what’s best for me even if I don’t understand.
Comment by: Westy
20Siamang,
I agree, obviously you don’t want to not do a good job of purveying your message. That doesn’t mean not sharing it, though. And at times it could be uncomfortable.
The difference with sharing about atheism via magazines, etc. is that it isn’t a matter of life or death from even the atheist’s perspective, whereas from the perspective of a Christian, converting to Christianity is.
Comment by: Laura M.
21Well, Stephan, if your doctor’s perfect…then he’s perfect.
He’ll understand that nothing in the entire realm of human experience comes anywhere close to knowing and understanding perfection.
He’ll understand why some love and are in awe of having a relationship with a perfect being, and why others can’t rid themselves of the doubt that there could possibly be such a thing as a perfect being at all.
Those are the perks of being perfect; the doubt of others couldn’t possibly diminish your perfection.
Comment by: Stephan
22You’ll get no argument from me.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Laura, I agree that ‘perfect’ should incorporate ‘perfectly understanding’. That’s why I reject all concepts of God which imply he is not perfectly understanding in his dealings with human beings.
Comment by: Mike O
24Is “perfectly understanding” the same thing as “absolutely permissive?”
Comment by: Mike O
25Eliza said in #15
OK, here’s my shot at it.
It all comes down to effectiveness. If the recipient doesn’t want to hear about it, what good does it do to cram Jesus down their throat? None. So would I really be fulfilling the great commission if I do that? Perhaps, but I doubt it would be very effective. Better to just be ready, and when the subject comes up, if people want to hear about it, you can tell them.
And Eliza, to your question,
IMO, Jesus did the great commission all the time.
The sermon on the mount
Healings he performed
His interactions with the religious leaders (who needed convert’n!)
EVERYTHING he did, he did with the purpose of making disciples. Some followed and some didn’t. And maybe his reaction to them is what we need to learn … if someone didn’t want to follow him, he left them and moved on
This is one reason I think I think ebay atheist is such an interesting site. This is a place where Christians can practice mixing the great commission and the great commandment.
Comment by: Laura M.
26Mike, I think you make an excellent point here. As Stephan points out, a person should be capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Or exercising and nourishing their body at the same time, well…maybe not at the exact same time in that case.
I don’t think it’s necessarily such a good idea to prioritize one over the other. Like lots of exercise and little food, or little exercise and lots of food, does that work ?
BTW, on my daughter’s first day ever attending Sunday School, the teacher read parts of the sermon on the mount from the Bible. It was right before Christmas and I thought it was an interesting change from the usual Christmas church story such as the story of Jesus birth.
The teacher had open discussion afterward and allowed the children to talk about what they thought of the Bible reading and/or what they thought about God and what they thought about Christmas.
Believe me, this was a very interesting disussion to listen to from the first grade group at a UU church.
For some strange reason, a short time following this incident, the teacher at the children’s group at the North Texas Church of ‘Freethought’ didn’t seem nearly as happy to hear that what my daughter enjoys about Christmas is celebrating baby Jesus’ birth.
Comment by: Mike O
27That’s odd. If she were from a Christian family, I wonder if her teacher would have reacted differently.
Comment by: Laura M.
28I thought it was interesting that the Sunday School my daughter attends (although I know it’s not considered a ‘Christian’ denomination by many Christians) was discussing that Christmas means different things to different people and the teacher was open minded and accepting of however/whatever the children thought about Christmas ( the discussion was begun in the context of ‘this is something of what it means to many Christians’).
The church of so-called ‘freethought’ didn’t seem nearly as open-minded. I thought that was odd too.
Comment by: Laura M.
29I should clarify that was the reaction of the one teacher for my daughter’s group that was present that day . I don’t know how the other leaders of the Freethought Church would have reacted.
Her reaction was one of suprise, I believe. I suspect she was so shocked she didn’t know what to say.
Comment by: Mike O
30That’s just weird to me.
Comment by: Anna
31I thought there was debate among scholars about whether Jesus actually said “go and make disciples.” I’ll see if I can find something about that for a reference. That would certainly help with this problem.
Comment by: Anna
32Here is a link to a page that has information from John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar (I know everyone doesn’t consider them scholars) and some other biblical scholars, which seems to say that they don’t consider the great commission authentic to the time of Jesus but to a later community.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/018_Revealed_to_Disciples
Unfortunately, the great commandment is not much better, but at least thought of to be similar to a lesson that Jesus taught, although the passage is not Jesus’ words, but those of the earliest Christians.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/201_The_Chief_Commandment
It would be interesting to read more about this research, because I think it definitely throws this seeming conflict into a new area of examination.
Unless we are talking about what most Christians believe are the two commandments, and the inconsistency of that, in which case it really doesn’t matter what Jesus actually said, and it is an excellent point to make about the inconsistent system of thoughts that make up much of modern Christianity.
My 2 cents,
Anna
Comment by: Stephan
33Anna, if you want to rely on the Jesus Seminar to grant authenticity then you can’t count on much of anything the Bible says. They have thrown out just about everything written down. I believe that, out of the entire Lord’s Prayer, they could only agree to keep “Our Father”.
Comment by: Anna
34You may be correct, Stephan, but for me to be a Christian with any sort of integrity, I have to accept that the accounts of Jesus we have received in the Bible are likely very biased based on the person or tradition recording them and passing them down. There are many different points of view in the Gospels alone, much less the correspondence of Paul and others, and I have to wrangle with that fact, and try to glean some idea of Jesus from what we have. That is all that the Jesus seminar seems to be doing, by comparing early manuscripts and independent attestations, and I admire that effort. Growing up, I thought I would have to leave Christianity, and did for a while, based on my inability to deny inconsistencies in the Biblical accounts, and only because of modern scholarship, much of which I read about in Crossan and others, and am now learning about at seminary, have I been able to return and embrace my faith wholeheartedly. It does require me to depend more on my personal experiences of Jesus and the Spirit working in my life , since I accept the fallibility of the Bible, but is that really such a bad thing? A personal relationship with my faith is the only kind that makes sense to me.
Comment by: Stephan
35Anna, I respect your opinion and am glad you have found a way to remain consistent with yourself and Christ. Personally, I think there is something between a fundamentalist reading of the Bible (take everything literally) and the Jesus Seminar (throw everything away). I agree that the sources for the Bible may have been biased, but I do not agree that everyone involved in the Jesus Seminar had such pure motives in their work.
Comment by: Mike O
36That’s a good point, Stephen. How much sense does it make to shun one set of bias in favor of another?
Put another way, which is more likely … that Jesus’ contemporaries got closer to the truth (his intent), or scholars 2000 years later coming up with very different results? I propose Jesus’ contemporaries are very likely more accurate, biased though they may have been (I don’t know that I buy that).