Posted by Mike O on: 06.01.2008 /
by Mike Olson
My wife, Sheri, and I attended the Conversational Evangelism Conference (CEC) in Minneapolis in May. The main thrust of the conference was to help Christians learn to interact with non-Christians in a more relaxed, conversational manner. That may sound simple enough, but it was interesting to see how elusive this concept really is for many Christians.
The standard Christian evangelistic paradigms give us formulas, techniques, and end-game strategies when relating to non-believers for the purpose of evangelism. While these may indeed help us to feel like we’re acting normal when we talk to them about Jesus (heavy emphasis on acting), what we really need to do is rediscover the lost art of being normal.
The first session we attended was with Jim Henderson and Matt Casper.
This one was really good because it gave Christians a chance to listen to a non-Christian for a change. Jim and Casper talked about their book, Jim and Casper go to Church, and the audience seemed intrigued and genuinely interested in what Matt had to say about how he - an atheist - perceives how we - Christians - do church.
Jim has a gift for asking very simple questions that cut to the heart of the matter. At one point Jim asked, “If you brought Jesus to church, would you have to explain it to him?” Yeah, I think maybe we would. Not that we’re doing church wrong, mind you, but maybe some of the things we do when we do church weren’t necessarily his ideas. Personally, I think the way we do church is fine with Him. But I also think it’s important for Christians to understand how the way we do church is perceived by outsiders. And Matt was able to help us see that.
Another simple, yet probing question Jim asked was, “Would Jesus be a Christian?” I took that to mean, “Would Jesus do Christianity the way Christians do?” I’m not so sure he would.
One piece of advice Matt has for Christians is to stop talking so much about what we believe. He didn’t mean we should never talk about Jesus - Jesus is important to us and non-Christians understand that. It’s OK to talk about what we believe, but non-Christians are more interested in what we’re doing to make a difference in the world around us. If Christians really want to effectively communicate Jesus to non-Christians, we need to live lives that intrigue and interest them. If we are perceived as “all talk,” we will never have effective evangelism.
We also attended a session led by Dan Kimball titled, “They Like Jesus but not the Church.”
He talked about how most Christians live in a Christian bubble that limits the number of non-Christians we come into contact with. He explained how there’s a gap between non-Christians and Christians, and to bridge that gap we have to regain their trust. Our Christian subculture, as it turns out, is actually getting in the way of them having a relationship with Christ, and until we find a way to bridge the gap between them and us, it will be nearly impossible to bridge the gap between them and God. The lost art of being normal is an important part of rebuilding that bridge.
I also attended a session on Doable Evangelism by Randy Siever.
For me, Doable Evangelism is “the lost art of being normal.” The whole point of Doable Evangelism is that you don’t have to do anything other than what you normally do - just do it with a purpose. Do you go to the grocery store? Go to the grocery store with a purpose. Instead of just checking out, talk to the checkout lady. Talk about surface stuff. Connect with her. Doable evangelism is about doing your normal life the way you normally would, but with the intent of paying attention to someone else.
Randy gave a hypothetical example of a checkout lady at the grocery store named Betty. (These aren’t Randy’s exact words)
While you’re standing in line, before you ever talk to Betty, NOTICE her. How long do you suppose she has been standing there? Does she look tired? Happy? Sad?
Next, LISTEN to her. Don’t force it, but if she seems OK with a little small talk, ask her how she’s doing. Ask her about her day. Betty is probably busy so let her take the converstation - if there is one - wherever she leads it. You don’t have to talk about Jesus all the time - just be normal. Let Betty talk about what’s important to Betty. Over time, you’ll start looking for Betty whenever you’re at the store, and Betty will start looking for you. Who knows? Betty may start waving you over to her line when she sees you because you brighten her day! And the conversation may even turn towards Jesus one day. And if it does, it will be at her invitation. But it may not. Just be normal and leave that in God’s capable hands.
Finally, PRAY for her. Praying is still normal for Christians, right? Don’t pray out loud - that would be embarrassing for both of you! You’re in a grocery store and there are people behind you in line. Just pray to yourself like any normal Christian would if they were praying in the middle of a crowded store. God hears you.
It all sounds so simple, but it was during Randy’s Q&A time that I realized just how lost the art of being normal really is on Christians. After 15 or 30 minutes of Randy explaining how going where we normally go and doing what we normally do counts as evangelism if we notice people, two sincere Christian ladies in the audience asked questions that struck me as very odd. Odd, that is, until I realized that I wondered the same things not so long ago.
The first question was, “Where’s the best place to do this? A coffee shop or something?” The idea that you don’t have to go out of your way to be normal - you don’t have to make a special trip - seemed to be lost on this person. Unless she normally goes to coffee shops to hang out, going to coffee shops to hang out wouldn’t be being normal for her. It would be acting normal. It was hard for her to grasp the notion that when she goes to the park tomorrow, she could just continue being normal there. And start noticing people.
The second question had to do with how to end the conversation with Betty. This person was looking for an end-game strategy to turn the conversation towards Christ. Her intentions were good, but the lost art of being normal was eluding her, too. In Doable Evangelism terms, what is the correct way to end a conversation with the checkout lady? Simple. You say, “Well, I had better be going. I’ll see you next time, Betty.” Then walk away. Just like you normally do when you’re done checking out at the grocery store.
The difference between Doable Evangelism and standard evangelism techniques, in my mind anyway, is in the end-game strategy. Doable Evangelism doesn’t have one. Not every conversation is supposed to end in an altar call. In fact, most won’t. Just be normal and leave it with God. And PRAY! Just do the normal stuff, and leave all the hard parts to God.
In the movie, The Big Kahuna, Danny DeVito’s character gives great advice on what I’ve been calling “The Lost Art of Being Normal”:
If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch. And you’re not a human being; you’re a marketing rep.
To me, the lost art of being normal is about not laying your hands on a conversation to steer it. It’s about finding out what their dreams are just to find out, for no other reason, and letting God do the steering. And if they ever ask you about Jesus, that will be a sweet day for both of you.
Comment by: Eliza
1Mike O - it sounds like a really interesting conference; thanks for writing about it!
Interesting, too, to hear the difficulty some may have with even recognizing the simplicity, normality, and “do-ability” of Doable Evangelism.
I’m reminded of the “Stages of Change” model, which I know from assessing & counseling for behavior changes pertinent to health. I wonder whether those practicing “Doable Evangelism” might have already noticed this, even if they don’t use the same terminology? Here’s an example of “Stages of Change” from a marketing/sales point of view:
(I left out their last stage, “Termination”, because it seems to give the “kiss off” to a past successful customer - not, I hope, how kindly, normal Christians, nor health care providers, think of the people they are hoping to influence and help! In health behavior counseling, the last stage is “Relapse”.)
The point to recognizing these stages of change is that an approach which works at one stage won’t work at another. For example, the “hard sell” approach to sales OR evangelism may be more likely to turn off someone who is at the Pre-Contemplative or Contemplative step, & will really only be useful if you happen to find someone who already is heading into, or is in, the Preparation step.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
2Eliza
This is great stuff- where do I find the source material?
Comment by: Jason
3Jim and Casper go to church has been on my reading list for far too long without me actually reading it. It’s my next but one book now.
Comment by: Mike O
4Eliza, that’s really interesting! I think it applies directly. Christians have an easier time with people who are in the contemplative or preparation stages, but we don’t mix so well with people in the pre-contemplative stage, who aren’t interested, or don’t like our “product.” (wink wink)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
5Jason
Here is the most recent review we receieved for Jim and Casper Go to Church
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
6Jason, the Jim and Casper podcast (embedded in the post) is fun to listen to if you have time. Jim and Casper have a great time together and you can hear that in the recording.
In it they introduce themselves, then read chapter 1 together, then take questions.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7Mike I’m so glad you rediscovered the lost art of being normal!
Comment by: Karen
8Y’know, it’s sad to me that there’s even a need for seminars to teach Christians “how to be normal.” Isn’t that unbelievable?
I mean, I understand why the need is there because of the enormous pressure to “witness” that so many people (including myself) have grown up with, but it’s still sad.
I’m glad there’s a movement available to take some of that pressure off. I remember basically defaulting to being normal with my non-Christian co-workers because I had to in order to get along with them. (You can’t work next to people day in and day out and constantly push a religion on them that they aren’t interested in. I mean, you can, but you’ll be intensely disliked and I couldn’t handle that.)
Still, that default made me feel like a failure as an evangelical and made me feel very guilty when I was asked what I was doing to convert people I came into contact with.
Comment by: Mike O
9Exactly! Wanna come back??? ;/
Comment by: Elaine
10Jim - you asked Eliza about the source material for the stages of change she listed…
The original source material - which has now been integrated into many books about change - came from the book,
You can find it at Amazon and most libraries.
I first read it about 12 years ago. Excellent! It helped me to be kinder to myself and others about things that didn’t change as fast as I liked.
Not only, does the book define the stages of change - it even suggests how to move to the next stage if you get stuck. :)
It was quite revolutionary when it came out.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
11Mike O wrote:
Mike, that’s an admirable attempt at evangelism but I don’t think you’ll get anywhere with Karen since she’s in stage 1 :)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
12Which is why you should help us teach these seminars
Comment by: Karen
13Stage 1? Wow, I’m truly come full circle then.
Wait, does that mean that somewhere along the line I was “born again”?
;-)
Comment by: Raghu Mani
14I’m sorry, but this sentence horrifies me. Is it possible for evangelicals to think of a non-believer as anything other than a target for conversion? It would seem to me that all this sentence is saying is that, yes, try and convert people but be more subtle because the overt technique is not working. And then the speaker calls this normal behavior?
When I interact with another person, religious or otherwise, I’m not thinking - “here’s a person I can sway to my point of view.” Rather, I’m thinking if I can find something I have in common with the other person so that we can strike up a conversation. If the two of us don’t have much in common, we just go our separate ways and if we do then, well, I get to know that person better and perhaps over time form a friendship. That’s normal behavior.
I know you make a distinction between “acting normal” and “being normal” but the above passage sounds more like acting to me. Being normal, for me, means accepting the other person for who they are, looking for what you have in common, and using that as a basis for interaction. In course of time, you might change the other person’s mind about various things - or you may not - but changing the other person should not be your goal from the get-go.
Raghu
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
15Thanks Raghu for your perspective. I think you have nailed the heart of the matter: evangelism is still evangelism no matter the technique. And if by it’s very nature evangelism seeks to sway others to a point of view, kind of like an advertisement or a political campaign, then of course it may come off as arrogant and self-serving no matter how kind and gentle the approach or authentic the intention to pay attention in order to persuade others towards a faith like mine. Some would call this “bait and switch.”
So what do we think about this, my Off the Map community? Is the very nature of evangelism an insult to other people’s beliefs? How would I respond if a Muslim or Hindu were strategising how to be kind to me in order to sway me towards faith in the deity they honor?
Raguh, is there any kind of evangelism that sits ok with you or is evangelism itself offensive, no matter the approach??? Has someone ever tried to evangelize you?
Comment by: Mike O
16Raghu, that was exactly the intent of what I was saying! People are not targets for conversion. At the same time, however, I do want people to have what I have. So given that, what do I do?
I do exactly what you said. Like I said in my closing paragraph,
I suppose I could have added another sentence that said, “and if not, then go play cards or something.” That was the intent of what I wrote.
Another thing I’d ask you to consider is that the target audience for that article/post was Christians, which isn’t typically the case here on ebay atheist. I’m telling Christians to stop pushing so hard and just build relationships … as you say.
Whether we should want you to follow Christ or not, we do. Or at least I do. But it’s fine with me if you never do. I may want it to happen, but my relationships never require it.
All relationships have elements of “conversion” to them. You want your friends to like what you like and support your views - maybe they will, maybe they won’t, but you’d at least like it. There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to agree with you. There is, however, something wrong with requiring people to agree with you, and then pretending that you have no agenda. That would be acting.
I openly admit it - I would LOVE it if everyone here became followers of Christ, just as you’d love to help me see how ridiculous it is for me to believe in him. Sorry, but that’s me. But at the same time, I’ve been here almost two years with nary a “notch on my belt.” That’s fine because I’m not here to convert, I’m hear to learn. And I’m here to help others learn about our perspective. And wherever it goes from there, cool beans. And like I’ve said before (maybe you’ve heard me say it), IF the God I believe in exists - and on that point we disagree - I’m leaving it in his hands. In the end, isn’t that what you’re really asking people who believe in God to do?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
17Pam and Raghu, my experience is that people always want to share what they care about with their friends. It’s part of friendship rather than conflicting with it.
I’m sure people who say they are totally opposed to evangelism are telling their friends about the awesome movie they just saw - in an attempt to persuade their friends it’s worth seeing. No-one gets up in arms about that but they should if all attempts to persuade anyone of anything are inappropriate.
Raghu even though you responded as if you disagree with Mike I think he’s agreeing with you. He’s opposing making people targets of evangelism. And being manipulative, which is what Pam’s question describes:
Comment by: Mike O
18I think it’s really easy to be offended once you set your mind to it.
I’m not offended by JWs who come to my door, I just send them on their way. But at the same time, I’ve had friends that were JWs. Did our relationship end once I found out? No, it was intresting to me.
I think where relationships like this get into trouble is when people can’t agree to disagree. In relationships like these - like ours - agreement is over-rated.
If soemone were “strategizing” to convert me to another faith, that would be fine with me as long as they didn’t pretend they weren’t strategizing (does that make sense?). And if they were willing to let me never convert, the relationship could last. But if our relationship were dependant upon my conversion to their faith, that relationship would likely be short-lived. That doesn’t make them right or wrong, it just makes them unable to relate to me long-term - which would be fine with me if they were unable to let me be, I guess.
Assume for a moment that they’re right. There is no argument they could make that would cause me to chuck my faith. It would be an internal, personal/spiritual conversion that would have to take place. I don’t think that would ever happen, but if it did it would be the result of a personal/spiritual quest, not a lost argument.
Quick example - A co-worker and I got together to pray for our other coworkers several years ago. We prayed for the success of the company, resolution to personal issues, and yes, we prayed for conversions (there were none.). About 2 weeks into this, he and I were walking by a river at lunchtime, and it suddenly became clear that he was “working me” when he offered to baptize me right then and there. Turns out he was part of a cult(?) that believed you had to be baptized a certain way or it didn’t count.
Our relationship ended that day. He had been dishonest with me, pretending to be working with me, when really he was working on me. He had an agenda, and it was me. I was the one being evangelized, and I didn’t much appreciate his trickeration.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
19Mike, I find being on the receiving end is often a very helpful (although not fun) learning experience!
Comment by: Mike O
20Amen to that, sistah!
That’s one of the things I’ve grown to appreciate here - I’m often on the receiving end. The tables are turned here, and it’s good learnin’!
Comment by: Raghu Mani
21I have no problem with evangelism. However this kind of stealth tactic disturbs me. If you want to evangelize, go ahead. It doesn’t offend me - I can always tell you I am not interested. However, don’t call this normal behavior. It isn’t - not by a long shot.
True, but that isn’t what I am talking about. What I see here is going into a “friendship” with some kind of ulterior motive. If your goal - before you have said a word to that person - is “bridging a gap between him and god,” then, from my point of view, something is wrong.
Of course you will share what matters to you with the other person and they will share what matters to them with you. However, you don’t start a relationship with that in mind. Even though I am an atheist, a majority of my friends are believers and we have discussed religion/atheism related issues numerous times. No one has convinced anyone else and we continue to be good friends because we never went into the relationship with converting the other person as a goal.
Raghu
Comment by: Raghu Mani
22Here’s my problem with this. You want the other person to “have what you have.” Well, how do you know that they don’t have something that’s better than what you have?
Anyway, I have few problems with your attitude - which seems quite reasonable to me. It’s just that the passage from your original post that I quoted seemed quite at odds with the rest of what you were saying.
As I said in another post, there is nothing wrong with sharing your likes/dislikes with your friends. But do you enter into a relationship with that as a goal. That is something that is objectionable to me.
Raghu
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Raghu, although I didn’t see what you saw in the quote from Mike’s post, I agree with all the points you’re making about friendship and agendas.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
24And me as well which is why I suck at evangelism!
Many years ago when I was a
Christian worker in Hong Kong (and this is where my philosophy about evangelism got totally gutted and shredded)…another worker and I made acquaintances with an east Indian family. Each week they invited us over for a lovely meal. They were hungry for friendship. We had an agenda. This kind of bothered me. We would enjoy their hospitality and eat their food and try our best to “steer” the conversation to Jesus. One week I said to my friend, “Hey, let’s go see the family and hang out.” Nope, she said, they aren’t interested in Jesus so I’m not wasting my time.
That was the day that whatever thread of evangelism was still inside of me got vaporized.
So yeah, Raghu, I’m with you. Sharing our faith and beliefs with each other is not the issue. Deception and ulterior motives are. Spiritual conversations are best achieved when there is true, meaningful interaction. The old saying is true: People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. The east Indian family in Hong Kong, unfortunately, discovered how much we didn’t care.
Comment by: Raghu Mani
25That’s where we differ. I have absolutely no interest in changing your beliefs except in those cases where they affect me. The last big discussion we had was on the ID/evolution issue and I argued with you on that one because support for ID among the general population could end up compromising my kids’ education. Other than issues like that, my attitude is that if your beliefs (whatever they may be) help you lead a happy and fulfilled life then they are none of my business and I shall not interfere in any way.
Raghu
Comment by: Raghu Mani
26Agreed completely. Incidentally, the one religious conversion that I am aware of in my circle of friends came about in just such a way. One person converted to another religion because of the influence of a friend of hers. IIRC, the two had been friends for almost a decade before the topic of religion came up in any serious way and neither went into their relationship with conversion or evangelism in mind.
Raghu
Comment by: Randy
27Wow…what a great conversation! Raghu…thank you so much for pressing your point. It is well made, I think. If we who follow Jesus really believe in His presence and power and his unconditional love for everyone, it seems like we should be willing to just love people like they are, and appreciate who they are CURRENTLY. And if one day, because we are friends, the conversation comes around to this Jesus who we adore, we would be welcomed to talk about him with abandon…as I assume we would about our children or favorite sports team.
Although friendships can be a significant means to expressing our faith, it is not a tool to do so. Agendas hijack a relationship.
Comment by: Karen
28See, just speaking for myself, I don’t feel that way at all. I know exactly how tough it is to give up long-cherished beliefs that tie you to your family and community, and I don’t feel like I’d “love” to see others give up those beliefs at all.
My participation here is interesting to me and if I have any particular “goal” it’s to improve communication and help religious people see that the non-religious are moral, happy, fulfilled people too.
Especially in your situation, with your wife a pastor, it would be incredibly tough and I’m afraid you’d suffer quite a bit if you were to deconvert. If you personally became persuaded there was no god, I’d certainly support you however I could, but that’s not something I’d root for.
Would I like to see you and other creationists accept evolution and support its teaching in schools? Absolutely - that’s a worthy goal. But getting people to leave their religion behind is no goal of mine, unless their religious beliefs are directly harmful to them and others (think cult members).
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
29Mike O wrote:
Raghu and Karen have said that’s not true of them - it’s not true of me either.
It is true of some atheists - I think it may be true of Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens and Harris.
In general atheists would like to persuade you (if you’re not an atheist) of things about them - that they’re decent people who have values and those values are often similar to yours.
Whereas many Christians want to persuade you (if you’re not a Christian) of things about you - that you’d be better off following Jesus.
Comment by: Randy
30Interesting distinction, Helen. I hadn’t seen it that way before. I wonder if this is true of most other non-C’s as well?
Maybe that’s too large a generalization, but I’m wondering if this would be a safe assumption to make for those of us who are interested in directing people to Jesus? I think the second statement is generally (but not always) true of C’s.
“Whereas many Christians want to persuade you (if you’re not a Christian) of things about you - that you’d be better off following Jesus.”
I don’t think we’d be evangelizing anyone if we didn’t believe that was the case, although I think we oversell that idea too much (or misrepresent the reality). We tell people to join us and their life will be “better” (which sounds like we’re saying our life is better than theirs). The implication is that their life is bad and our life is good, and that if they just follow Christ then their life will be full of good things and wonderful and peaceful and…oh yeah, you get to go to heaven (and not hell) where all the stuff you really like here on earth is given to you like a million times more and better.
The fact is, following Jesus will oftentimes make life much more difficult and dangerous, leading to sacrifice, rejection, persecution and sometimes even death. This doesn’t get much press, but that’s pretty much the deal Jesus gave us.
Sorry…I sort of brainfarted here. Your comment just sort of launched me into some interesting territory (for me anyway).
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
31Randy - I see what you mean. Yes, in my former life as a Christian I learned that ‘better’ didn’t necessarily mean ‘richer’ or ‘healthier’ or ‘more comfortable’. But it did definitely mean ‘better’ overall, because in this life you have Jesus then you get to go to heaven.
I think you’re right that Christians would like to persuade others that they are decent people. The values part - I’m not so sure about that - my experience is that what Christians want to emphasize about their values is, they come from God. Not ‘they’re like yours’. Christians don’t have the problem atheists have; namely atheists get told they might as well be raping and pillaging since their values are arbitrary. Or it’s assumed that they already are living a selfish and/or hedonistic life.
Comment by: Jason
32Mike O wrote:
Just in case you were wondering, an attempt to convert me would have the opposite result. Not because your message or intentions are wrong but because I think that it is important to arrive at a conclusion myself. That means that I have to ask questions and listen to a variety of opinions before making up my mind. Worse than that, I’m often changing my mind when I discover something new or am exposed to an old idea from a new angle. Conversion attempts remove that choice by assuming that I’m asking a question or seeking an answer when that isn’t necessarily the case.
I visit Christian evangelical sites and discussion forums to expose myself to new ideas or old ideas that I don’t understand. Sharing ideas is normal and productive and it’s always a good feeling when your own ideas are adopted by others. They have to adopt them though, not be given them.
I’m not sure if I’m being clear at all.
Also, I don’t want to make you an atheist but I wouldn’t object if you chose to accept my ideas about religion or based your own new ideas on something that I thought was good.
Comment by: Raghu Mani
33I’m sure some atheists are like that. The above four may well be. However, I’d like to point out that there is a distinction between writing books, making speeches etc and trying to evangelize one-on-one. I can easily ignore books and speeches. However, if I am interacting with someone - like a friend or a family member or a co-worker - face-to-face, then it becomes much harder to avoid.
Raghu
Comment by: Matt Casper
34What Helen said:
really makes me think… when I talk to Christians, that’s kind of what happens. They learn that “atheist does not equal goat killer.” I tell them a bit about me.
But what I HOPE HAPPENS/WANT TO HAPPEN is that folks walk away thinking a bit more about their own belief systems and the leaps therein.
My goal is not to convert anybody to anything other than uncertainty about the unknowable.
Comment by: Eliza
35Elaine, thanks for giving Jim the info on the origins of the Stages of Change Model (way back up in #10…after Jim asked way back up in #2!). I’ve been off-line, in part due to my mother’s recent knee replacement (also, busy at my darn job!).
Jim, Wikipedia has a page on it here.
Comment by: Eliza
36Interesting conversation on this topic. Nice interactions, too, y’all - what good role models you are!
In cruising some reading material elsewhere online, I’ve learned that “starting a conversation” seems to be widely considered the hardest step - yet the necessary first step - in evanagelism. Does this strike anyone else as odd? We talk to strangers all the time, through a typical day or week. If it seems hard to start a conversation, maybe that’s a sign that the conversation being planned didn’t feel natural, didn’t seem like it’d be welcomed? And maybe that one should stick with what feels natural?
(I know that JC gave “the Great Commission”, but IMO his example makes a more inspiring approach, e.g. gathering with the outcasts & irreligious for many of his meals, apparently simply joining with them in conversation without some strenuous attempt to convince them they were wrong & should believe in him. Despite his potential ability to knock their socks off & make believers of them on the spot. If he didn’t seem to feel the need to force the issue, why should a modern Christian?)
On the topic of goals, etc: I think I would welcome any opportunity to encourage people to think about their beliefs & freely, & thus (of their own doing) come to see things the way I do ;-) but then that seems a pretty human desire, so I don’t feel bad about it.
I definitely would not want to be the cause of someone having the rug pulled out from them - losing their support system & social network, losing the relationship they’ve had with their god. That would feel like I’d caused someone harm. On the other hand, I don’t believe I have any direct power to change people’s beliefs, so any transformation someone might undergo would be as a result of their own thoughts, considerations, & internal processing…or, who knows, maybe even the workings of the holy spirit!
I haven’t been around here (and CatE and ChurchRater) much lately, have been busy but also have been pursuing “studies” on my own on all this stuff. Mostly, I’ve been continuing to learn & ponder more myself about the nature of what something called god would be like & how we would know. Also some about religion in general & Christianity in its various incarnations (so to speak), all of which still puzzle me despite now knowing more about the history. Various discussions on the OTM sites have been invaluable tools, triggers, & guides all along the way. I just finished listening to a 24-lecture series on “The Philosophy of Religion” from The Teaching Company, given by an agnostic Episcopalian philosophy professor who was raised evangelical. And I finally watched “Jesus Camp” last night, *shudder*.
And I do still think alot about what to say when/if I’m approached by someone evangelizing. Be polite but decline to participate in the conversation? Answer in “Christianese” as if I’m one of them? (A lie, but seems like the fastest & surest way to get rid of them, and now I think I could “pass”.) Refuse to answer their question and instead challenge their basic assumptions? (Examples: (A) Point out that they seem to be assuming that the question “Do you know where you will go when you die?” is a valid multiple choice quiz with one correct answer - theirs, when in fact I find the question itself to need clarification on several levels - most important, what do they assume & mean by the term “you” or “I/me”? Or, (B) Point out that “Are you saved?” is incorrect grammatically in English, since “save” is a transitive verb and “saved” is the past participle, so should take “were” or “have been”, not the present tense “are”. But these seem pedantic.) Smile, shake my head, and walk away? I really still don’t know how “best” to handle this, though now it seems like I have more options (instead of just panicking & running away as fast as I could!).
Comment by: Amy Black
37I’d just like to add my voice to the atheist perspective:
I agree with karen, helen and others that as an ex-Christian atheist I know first hand how incredibly difficult it is to lose your faith in God once you’ve had it for so long and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
I want Christians to respect me and other non-believers as human beings, but as far as their beliefs about that which is invisible, I truly don’t care.
I just don’t like the “let’s take over the world” attitude I sense so often from Christian culture. It seems like Christians won’t be truly happy until every country in the world is led by a Christian, teachers lead prayers to Jesus in their classrooms, all students are taught creationism and K-LOVE is the only radio station.
Is this so far from the truth?
Comment by: Mike O
38Are you asking us to not want people to follow Christ? I’m trying to find the politically correct way to say this, but part of the Christian faith is that following Jesus is the only way. I understand how that can be irritating to people who don’t share our beliefs, but given that we do hold that belief, what do you suggest we do?
I struggle with this all the time - as a Christian I want other people to follow Christ, too. But I’ve come to the place (I think) where I want that, but I don’t require that of my relationships. Kind of an “agreement is overrated” approach. Is that enough?
Comment by: Karen
39I’d be happy if religious people could just live and let live. That doesn’t seem so difficult to me.
Here’s what I’d say to evangelicals:
You might “want” everybody to think and believe the exact same way you do, but it’s a very complicated world and things don’t always happen the way we want them to. A phrase I used to hear a lot in Christian circles was “Let go and let god.”
Why not let that apply to evangelism also?
If your friends are going to wind up converting someday they’ll do that with or without your efforts, if god is in charge, right? So let him be in charge and don’t worry so much about it. He’ll accomplish it in his own time, if he wants to. Meanwhile, just be normal.
Comment by: Raghu Mani
40Not in the least. As I have said, I may not want you to become an atheist but I have certainly tried my best to convince you that ID is a load of bunk. So it isn’t as if I don’t want to change you in some way.
My problem is not with your approach but that the quotes in your posts seemed quite at odds with the rest of your message.
Raghu
Comment by: Amy Black
41Comment by: Mike O
Are you asking us to not want people to follow Christ?
ok, good question. Hmmm, maybe I’m asking that Christians direct their evangelism toward people who are interested /searching for a religion.
Comment by: Mike O
42I couldn’t agree with you more!!!!!