I’m writing our of anger and frustration lately, so I won’t be as nice or eloquent as usual. Throw me a frickin bone.
I have a fair number of unflattering opinions regarding Christians in general and some Christians in particular. However, I don’t say it to their faces. I won’t even say it here, both because I think it serves no purpose to offend someone and it’s nothing Christians haven’t heard before anyway. So why, whenever I am in conversation with a Christian about our respective beliefs, can they not hold their damn tongue?
“You might not believe this, but God does love you and you will bow to him one day.” What purpose could it possibly serve to say this to me, that is worth my offense and disgust? Do you honestly think I haven’t heard this a million times before?
Christians often excuse this kind of verbal vomit in themselves and others by saying, “they can’t help it, that’s just what they believe.” Honestly? When has this ever been accepted as an excuse for anyone else with an inconsiderate mouth? First of all, atheists usually don’t shoot off their mouths by telling Christians they’re delusional, etc. in everyday conversation, unless they happen to be someone who makes their living doing so, like Richard Dawkins. Second of all, when atheists do tell Christians what they really think of them, it’s because they are (according to the Christians) arrogant, immature, and sinister. It’s not because they can’t help but express what they really believe about the world.
I have never said anything to demean anyone’s personal faith. I would never consider saying anything along the lines of “I bet you won’t be a Christian in 5 years.” I would never even consider telling anyone that I wish they would become an atheist. I think individuals are entitled to their own beliefs and they’re entitled to base their beliefs based on whatever criteria they choose. Yet these things are said to me in 98% of all conversations that I have with Christians who know that I’m an atheist. Furthermore, I get no particular relish out of causing religious change in another person, being the one to show them the light. Many Christians derive satisfaction and pride from “leading someone to Christ”. (It is common practice, in the evangelical circles I’ve been a part of, for young Christians to pray that they will be able to lead someone to Christ. Not that the other person will become a Christian, mind you, but that they will be the one to bring about that change.) I know this has now become a tangent, but all I can think is, seriously? I remember hearing about friends who were depressed because they hadn’t personally led anyone to accept Christ lately. Seriously, get over yourself.
It’s one thing to occasionally say something like “I’ll pray for you,” which I don’t consider inherently offensive. Although I still have to wonder why you consider it so important for me to know you’re praying for me. Aren’t you supposed to pray in private where only God can hear you? You may think it’s encouraging to someone to know that they’re prayed for, but that’s true only if that actually means something to them. If you just want me to know that you care about me, tell me so, or say or do something that doesn’t sound like the humming of meaninglessness in my ear.
That reminds me of another possible reason for Christian-atheist verbal vomit. Christians want to be the one to plant the seed in the atheists’ mind, which the Holy Spirit will use to eventually bring them to Christ. I’m so tired of belaboring this topic that all I can say is, if this is why you feel the need to tell me that God loves me and that I’m wrong about him, please don’t bother. The Holy Spirit has plenty of God seeds in my memory bank to work with, it’s not like I need a refresher.
There’s surely much more I could say about this topic, but I’m tired of thinking about it. One final thought: Christians are somewhat required to share their faith, what with something Jesus said to that effect. Jesus also said don’t be surprised if the world hates you because of it. You can tell me that I’m going to hell, but for crying out loud don’t expect me to still be your friend.
I really have nothing against Christians, and I’m certainly not out to convert anyone to atheism. I am very willing to listen to anyone talk about their own personal faith and beliefs (really and truly, I am), as long as they extend me the same courtesy. Conversation goes both ways. If you’re not willing to listen and accept me, you can expect the conversation to end.
I have never been much of an evangelist, but I used to be a “seed planter” until recent years, when I finally figured out God is perfectly capable of talking to whoever He wants to, however He wants to, without me micromanaging - uh - facilitating - it. I don’t know if that helps, but I can understand your frustration. I’m a Christian and some Christians are still trying to convert me — because I don’t subscribe to whichever specific doctrine they think is important. (I’m a bit of a free-range Christian).
Sorry for your frustration. It’s a pretty deeply seated element of the human condition for you or me to want other people to agree with us, share our perspective, and affirm our beliefs. Most people feel less secure when in proximity to those who don’t think like we do, whether about Christianity or Islam or atheism, or about red state/blue state ideas, vegetarianism, whether global warming is really a threat, whether skateboarders who wear their pants low are cool or silly, or whether certain movies or music are “good.” It’s pretty hard for any of us to hold our tongues when we encounter the “other thinker,” without at least attempting to suggest the “other” should reconsider that our way of thinking is right after all.
Put that fact together with the problem that in your environment you are surrounded mostly by not-quite-adults who are still polishing their social interaction skills in general, and whose version of Christianity is usually highly missional, and you have a recipe for a lot of mostly well-intentioned, insecure, and clumsy conversations. I’m sorry you are finding those conversations so offensive; one could imagine a Christian blogging the same way if surrounded by Islamists, or a Muslim writing similar things at a school where mostly atheists attended. I have been enjoying your blog and appreciate your honesty (at least up to the point of your on-line anonymity;-)), but we would no doubt (no pun intended) agree that the same eager “yes–me too!” attitude is expressed by many atheist commentators reacting to your blog, along with the predictable “other”-disparaging comments about how silly “those people” are. After all, there can only be one truth about whether God exists, and you’re voluntarily (no gun to your head, right?) keeping yourself at a place where the vast majority of folks think he does, and that to think otherwise is about as “other” as one can be. To expect higher-order conversations and more tolerance might be asking more than humans in general can give to the “other thinker,” whether here at Wheaton or anywhere else in the world. Hang in there, overlook immaturity, keep your own conversations above the fray with humor and humility, and keep thinking and writing!
Part of it might be that people are comfortable arguing against a minority position. Here in Australia (or my small portion of it at least) most people are either nonreligious or not actively religious, and (I think) as a result even devout Christians are very careful about what they say.
Another thing is that you have the advantage of having seen both sides of the argument. I’m an ex-Christian atheist too; although I now disagree with Christianity, I’ve been through several years of understanding, agreeing with and arguing for that point of view, so I have some sympathy for it. Someone who’s been a Christian all their life doesn’t have that.
I really don’t know the answer to your question. What i DO know is as a christian (and I was raised in the UU church), there would be one reason I would not do what is happening to you, and another reason that I would do it.
Reason for NOT is that regardless of my opinions or hopes for you, telling you something that is not only obviously offensive to you but also negates what you are obviously passionate about will serve absolutly NO purpose other than pushing you away.
so, the only reason _I_ might consider voicing such opinions directly to you, is if we were in a dialog where you specifically invited and welcomed my opinion and comments.
However, please understand, that just like your thoughts and comments would be found offensive, but you certainly can’t mean them offensively - you would mean them as offering what you honestly think is best for the other person. I expect that most of the christians are trying, albiet VERY poorly to express their concern for you. That doesn’t make it ok, just like you correctly posit, it wouldn’t make it ok if you were to do it in reverse, if you follow my reasoning.
I also, unfortunately expect that there are some who are threatened by your comments, and so their response is kneejerk to protect themselves.
I am VERY conscious of not pushing my christianity in peoples faces for the very reasons you mention. The fact is that you are in a situation where, like it or not, if you even mention your atheisim, you will (right or wrong, as you have seen) get the responses you get.
I point this out NOT TO EXCUSE but to reiterate a simple fact. The only person anyone can change is themselves. So, knowing that these christians reply to your comments with objectionalble responses, why on earth would you continue to discuss the issue with them?
Blessings (of whatever sort you would prefer
Sigh. I hope you feel better soon.
I’ve too experienced this when it comes to some of the more dense places with Christians (I’m a member of several online communities).
I think it simply comes from that the Christian is so sure about his conviction, so utterly enlightened about the “truth”, that anybody else not agreeing must simply be like a child in darkness in his mind. I always find the tone degrading, as if I was some kind of retard that needed help and they were trying to tell me the obvious in life, like “don’t touch the hot plate!”.
But it can’t be obvious. If it was, then why isn’t everybody a Christian? Why are other people, like Muslims and Jews equally sure about their conviction? How can you say something is obvious at all when it requires faith?
I definitely agree about the term “Truth” I hear frequently in church when I visit with my wife’s family. Christians throw that around quite a bit in religious conversations. Words like Truth, Knowledge, and Fact have certain implications that Christians are interested in. How many times have you heard “God created Man, its a fact” ? Or “Knowledge of God” Or “Biblical Truth” Consider what they really mean. Can you have knowledge of God? Not to get too philosophical but if we have knowledge of something then Faith is NOT necessary at all (or even possible…). We would simply know that something is the case and that would be the end of it. To know something require more than just psychological conviction or belief. It requires justification. Same goes for truth and fact. Next time you here that come up, think to yourself, “Is that really a fact?” or “Do they really have knowledge of that?” Simply saying the words is not enough unfortunately. I really think there is a correlation between Christian conviction their “misuse” of these words and ideas. This conviction is the source of much annoyance indeed.
Here is the difference that makes Christians “evangelical” about their beliefs while atheists are not. Christians believe there is eternal importance to what you believe. Atheists do not. How can there be, when death is the end and there is no afterlife? So while there is no great motive for atheists to want to convert people, there is a motive for Christians, and it’s an eternal one.
So, from an atheist perspective, you can disagree with someone but still say, “So what, you may be deluded and unhappy, but eventually you will die and that will be the end of it.”
A Christian, on the other hand, cannot say that. If you are wrong about what you believe you are deluded and unhappy and it gets worse after you die. That’s pretty strong motivation to try to get people to change.
It’s not an excuse to be rude, but I hope you can see from that why there is a difference in attitude.
I hope you say this stuff out loud…..people need to hear how they come across to people whether or not they ‘hear’ it or not…….
Stephan, that is quite a negative outlook on it. I would just hate it if one of my loved ones was deeply religious. I would of course respect it, and not bother them about it, but I wouldn’t be happy personally about it.
I would keep thinking about how many times they pray to a non-existing friend while missing out on time with their real friends. How many times they have false hope that God will keep them safe from harm, only to have reality smash into their face over and over, with nothing to say but “God is mysterious”.
But most of all, I would be sad about how they would think of this only life as a test, and not enjoy it to the fullest, only to get absolutely nothing when it’s over. That is like eating very little of a super good dinner in order to make room for desert, only to be told that there isn’t any desert after all.
So, I think, from my atheistic perspective, that it is indeed a large loss.
Drakim, I see your point, but a Christian could turn that right around and go on and on about all the great stuff you’re missing out on by not being a Christian. And then on top of that (some would say) you are going to hell after you die. So there’s all the “this world” stuff you miss out on, plus all the “next world” stuff you miss out on.
Do you see why that would make Christians a lot more motivated than atheists when it comes to trying to change someone’s beliefs?
Again, I agree with Stephan.
Also, If you really believe that you are right, why don’t you want to convert anyone to atheism? how is it better to prefer to leave people in (what you see as) ignorance? i say, grab on and keep engaging in the debate!
But from a practical standpoint, if you cannot handle (or accept I daresay) the Christian perspective, why do you keep engaging in such conversations? In your last paragraph you say you are willing to listen to anyone’s personal beliefs…except for the belief that God is real and loves you and won’t just let you get away. So even though they honestly believe that, its one belief you won’t listen to?
(Let me restate that I really enjoy reading your blog, and do not intend to run you off by asking contrary questions! Feel free to ignore any comments that I have to make! But I, like you, only wish to face reality as it is, and one of the ways to accomplish that is by learning from and talking with one another.)
Ok, let me respond to some of these comments. First of all, I don’t go looking for religious conversations. The only time I initiate such conversation is when I first come out to someone. After that, it’s up to them whether they want to make discussion about religion or non-religion a part of our friendship. 98% of people have decided they want to talk about religion with me, and it’s usually they who bring it up and press me to clarify my beliefs so they can pounce on them. I sometimes refuse to talk about religion, but then I’m seen as arrogant, standoffish, nonconfrontational, or simply a weak atheist. (”See, you don’t want to talk about it, that’s because you can’t defend it.”)
Amy, for an explanation of why I don’t want to convert people to atheism, read Stephan’s first comment. I believe in the freedom to base your worldview on whatever you choose. I base mine on truth, naturalism, materialism. I have no problem if you want to base yours on comfort, love, tradition, scripture, etc., if it makes you happy and helps you in life. People are different. I like differences. My journey is my own and I have no wish to force it on anyone. Not everyone has to capacity to accept materialism, and atheism might not necessarily benefit everyone if they don’t have the ability to handle meaning and morality and mortality without a supreme authority.
Second of all, what I said in this post was harsher than I’d ever be to a friend face to face, unless they really pushed the issue with me. The problem I have is with people saying offensive things me, me repeatedly telling them I’m offended, but they still continue to say them AND demand that I bare my soul and tell them all about why I’m an atheist. No thanks.
There is a distinction between talking about your own beliefs regarding yourself, and talking about your beliefs regarding the person you’re talking to. I have no problem if a Christians wants to say “I believe that I’m going to heaven when I die, and all my Christian family members will be there, and we’ll be in the presence of joy and majesty beyond anything we can imagine.” vs. “I believe you are going to Hell.” Or “I believe Jesus Christ is the one true God, and because of his love I’m so happy that I wish everyone knew him too” vs. “Jesus loves you, why can’t you see that? Why can’t you accept him? Your atheism is so wrong, Jesus still loves you and he wants you back.”
The difference between those two approaches may be too subtle for some, but I think it is a vast difference and telling someone how your beliefs apply to them is crossing the line. When I talk about my atheism with someone face to face, I talk about what it means for me and how my life is affected– not how I think it would affect the other person if they adopted that worldview, or that their body is going to be eaten by worms when they die. It’s a subtle distinction that makes for a big difference in conversation.
Hang in there. For what it’s worth, you’re amazingly courageous to even discuss this with your classmates, knowing what they will think of you. In your situation, I’ve no doubt I would have held my tongue, nodded along in chapel and stayed in the closet.
I’m sorry that the conversations are so difficult.
Someday you won’t be surrounded by people who all think the same things and you’ll have a chance to toss out, quite casually, “Oh me? Yeah, I’m an atheist” and you’ll get a response like, “Oh really? That’s cool” or even a “Huh - me too!”
That’ll be a good day, and it’s not terribly far in the future.
As for why the reactions you’re getting are so offensive, I tend to think the whole evangelical community is pretty offensive frankly. These responses are to be expected, and I don’t think excuse them with “Oh, but they mean well, they just don’t want you to go to hell!”
When I was an evangelical, we thought nothing of lying, bribing and scaring people into coming to church or to revivals. It went with the territory, and the ethical and interpersonal implications just got ignored.
“I believe in the freedom to base your worldview on whatever you choose. I base mine on truth, naturalism, materialism. I have no problem if you want to base yours on comfort, love, tradition, scripture, etc., if it makes you happy and helps you in life.”
This is a good point. Everyone deserves the freedom to choose their own world view. The question then becomes how does one best choose a world view. Whether a view is appealing is somewhat irrelevant however. I am not an atheist because its hip and it gets you girls (jk). I am an atheist because I feel it most accurately portrays reality. Being a Christian is very appealing no doubt. You get eternal love, life, being united with your loved ones and oh yeah, NOT suffering eternally. Who in their right mind would turn that down?
Christians may say to you, “Why would you want to go to hell?” as if there is one for atheists. Don’t insult my intelligence, please. Heaven, Hell, God, The Holy Spirit etc are not accepted by everyone and hence are not bargaining chips. To me as an atheist who accepts the findings of modern science, these things are supernatural. We might as well be discussing fairies, unicorns, or werewolves. I do not lose one bit of sleep worrying about my soul because it does not exist. Do you worry about feeding the hobbit in your closet?
This is the best analogy I’ve ever heard. It is a great rebuttal to Pascal’s Wager.
Thank you, Drakim.
For the record, I am much better off without Xianity - and Xianity was mostly positive for me. But, the negatives were subtle and I didn’t see them until I left Faith behind. Now, I see that I was missing out on a lot. But, as always, YMMV.
As for expressing one’s beliefs. Xians can speak of their own experience without making others a target. Like leavingeden said, talk about what your faith means to YOU and what YOU get out of it, don’t tell ME that I’m missing out or that I’m going to Hell, especially if I already know all about the details. The point is interaction, not knowledge transfer, in this case. Believe me, most atheists I’ve come into contact with are at least as familiar with Xianity as believers.
There’s “talking with” and then there’s “talking at.” These people are doing the latter. They need to grow up.
Leaving Eden:
I was reflecting a lot over what you are saying, and I have to say that you make an excellent point. Setting aside completely whether or not what these people are saying is true, their way of going about it is completely wrong and ineffective. Have you heard of Francis Schaeffer? (I would be surprised going to Wheaton if you haven’t, but in case you haven’t, he was a Reformed Theologian and Philosopher) Apparently, he said that if he had one hour to speak with someone and wanted to share the Gospel with them, he would listen for 55 minutes, and only spend 5 minutes talking. These people who are antagonizing you would do well to listen to you, to take you in and care about you as a person. And only offer comments or opinions in return where they are fitting, which they obviously have not been or else you would not be quite so angry. I apologize for having done the same thing to you with my previous comment.
Drakim/Polly:
But most of all, I would be sad about how they would think of this only life as a test, and not enjoy it to the fullest, only to get absolutely nothing when it’s over. That is like eating very little of a super good dinner in order to make room for desert, only to be told that there isn’t any desert after all.
I have heard this sort of analogy as a rebuttal to Pascal’s Wager, and I think it makes a valid point. Pascal’s Wager is food for thought, but hardly a solid plot of ground upon which to plant the flag of your life.
I am really interested in your analogy of skipping dinner in order to save room for dessert. There are many Christians who are Christians precisely because of the hope of “dessert.” However, I am not one of them. Granted, the hope of heaven is pretty great. But if being a Christian also means accepting the reality of Hell, there have been times when I have wished and hoped that there would be nothing after death. Ceasing to exist sounds a lot better than endless torment! My point is, for many people, myself included, Christianity rings true not so much because of the offer of “dessert” but rather because it fits so well with why the dinner actually isn’t super good, as you claim it is. Sometimes life can be very sweet. But my life has also been filled with burnt potatoes, brussels sprouts, and an empty plate where the roast beef used to be. (Ok, I am done overstreching the analogy). The fact is life is not always a wonderful thing, people do wicked and cruel things. My response to Christianity has more to do with this life rather than the life to come.
Also, I would argue that being a Christian does not require you to fast during dinner, it only requires you to refrain from eating that which either is not yours to eat, or to refrain from eating that which is poisonous to you.
Karen:
When I was an evangelical, we thought nothing of lying, bribing and scaring people into coming to church or to revivals. It went with the territory, and the ethical and interpersonal implications just got ignored.
Don’t make the mistake of extending your experience to all Christians. If what you are describing did indeed happen, then what they were doing was disgusting and contrary to the faith they claimed with their lips to believe but obviously did not believe in their hearts.
Don’t make the mistake of extending your experience to all Christians.
I wouldn’t dream of it. That’s why I clearly stated that I was talking about MY experience as an evangelical.
If what you are describing did indeed happen, then what they were doing was disgusting and contrary to the faith they claimed with their lips to believe but obviously did not believe in their hearts.
I can’t see into anyone’s personal belief system. Can you? All I can tell you is that the people who were my fellow churchgoers appeared by all lights and by their lives to be fully committed followers of Christ.
They justified “whatever it takes” to bring new converts into the fold by being totally serious about the reality of hell. If someone needed to be bribed, or frightened, or fibbed into the Kingdom, that was worth it.
I’d be surprised if many, many evangelicals don’t feel and act the same way, though I doubt many of them would admit that what they were doing is unethical.
I wouldn’t dream of it. That’s why I clearly stated that I was talking about MY experience as an evangelical.
Ok, good! Its just when you said “it came with the territory” it sounded like you meant it came automatically with being an evangelical Christian, and it doesn’t.
I can’t see into anyone’s personal belief system. Can you? All I can tell you is that the people who were my fellow churchgoers appeared by all lights and by their lives to be fully committed followers of Christ.
No, I can’t. But what I can say is that some of the people who are manipulative and unethical in trying to convert people are not really believers, despite outward appearances. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 7:21) And those behaving in that way who ARE really believers are not acting according to but contrary to their faith. You aren’t going to find lying, bribing or terrorizing people into the Church anywhere in the New Testament. Once you become a Christian, you don’t become immune to being a sinner or a jerk.
I’d be surprised if many, many evangelicals don’t feel and act the same way, though I doubt many of them would admit that what they were doing is unethical.
I am sorry that you feel this way, but do you really have any evidence for thinking this? Because nearly every evangelical that I have met would not behave in the way you described. So whose anecdotal experience is worth more, yours or mine?
I am not trying to be antagonistic, just to point out that you are still extending your experience to people you have never met or experienced. We should all be careful about doing that, whether they be christian, atheist, black, white, male, female or whatever.
I am not trying to be antagonistic, just to point out that you are still extending your experience to people you have never met or experienced.
And you’re doing exactly the same thing in declaring that no Christian that YOU KNOW would do anything unethical. And then you’re taking it a step further and declaring that Christians who take unethical actions in order to further the gospel are Not True Christians, right?
See the No True Scotsman logical fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.
Let me list some of the actions that I’m talking about. All of them were not done just by individuals, they were taken by organized evangelical clubs, parachurch organizations and churches. None of the organizations or individuals I mention felt they were doing anything wrong - quite the contrary! They felt they were following Christ’s “great commission” and bringing new souls into the kingdom, which they felt was the highest calling of an evangelical:
In college, my IV group hosted a frightening film about a young woman who dies in a car accident and then realizes she is going to hell because she rejected Christ. In order to publicize the film, we held a mock funeral in the campus quad, complete with black-robed-clad “grim reapers,” a coffin, a funeral procession, grim music, etc.
(What we were doing - as I see it now - was trying to scare people into the kingdom using the threat of hell. Not something I’d call ethical or kind.)
In church, I helped promote a discussion group that we marketed to the unchurched as an objective place for people interested in “investigating spiritual matters.” It was held off-campus so as to be attractive to non-Christians wary of coming to church. However, this group was NOT truly an objective discussion group on spiritual matters. In truth, it had an explicit evangelical mission, a prayer group supporting it and was “seeded” with people who had a gift for bringing nonbelievers into the fold.
(What we were doing - as I see it now - was lying to people about the true purpose and composition of the group, then pulling a bait-and-switch once they joined. This is considered unethical and sometimes illegal in business.)
I also supported a ministry that brought international high school students to our neighborhood to stay with church families for the summer. The goal was to take these students to church, witness to them and encourage them to convert, with the hope that they would return to their families and convert them also. It was considered a way to do international missions without having to go overseas.
However, this was not marketed as an evangelical ministry but as a cultural exchange. Parents who sent their kids on the exchange were not told they would be subjected to proselytizing or churchgoing. One girl converted and then faced a lot of trouble from her family when she returned to them witnessing for Jesus (they were non Christians). Rather than rethink this ministry, we quoted the bible verse about how the gospel will turn family members against each other and figured we were doing exactly what Jesus wanted.
(What we were doing - as I see it now - was lying about the true purpose of the program, putting unfair pressure on impressionable young people far from home, causing tension and division in families, and unethically influencing minors without their parents’ approval. How would we have felt sending our kids on a “cultural exchange” and having them come home as Muslim converts? We didn’t think about that because we were all about saving souls.)
One final example. Many people I know participated in summer mission trips to an extremely poor Third World country where the population is overwhelmingly Eastern Orthodox Christian. The participants would take suitcases full of money, clothing, toys, food, etc. then they would do door-to-door evangelism in the country on behalf of a local Charistmatic Protestant church. They handed out the goodies to the incredibly deprived, often sick individuals they visited, along with an invitation to attend an evangelical revival at the Protestant church.
I asked one participant why they were trying to get these people to leave the Orthodox Church and join the Protestant church. After all, weren’t they already Christians? Why not partner with the Orthodox Church rather than opposing them? The participant told me, without hesitation, that the Orthodox believers were Not True Christians because “they don’t have Jesus in their hearts” and they still needed to be saved.
(What this group was doing - as I see it now - was using material goods to bribe vulnerable people into attending a highly emotional, overwhelming revival service so they would convert. It was not only unethical, but it was also disrespectful to assume that Orthodox believers are unsaved or do not “know” Jesus. It was also unethical to “steal” people away from the Eastern Orthodox churches where they had been raised and perhaps found great comfort and beauty.)
Amy, have you ever seen evangelical tactics like the ones I’ve described? Does every true Christian that you know make it absolutely clear when they invite their friends and neighbors to a “holiday concert” or “family festival” at church that there is going to be an altar call or evangelical outreach? Or do they couch what they’re doing so as not to put people off, justifying the lie by the thought of a “greater good” of bringing someone to Christ?
If you’ve never seen such tactics, I’d ask how old you are. If these things are not done by the church now, that’s great. But they were absolutely part and parcel of my experience in 30 years of evangelical belief and ministry.
And you’re doing exactly the same thing in declaring that no Christian that YOU KNOW would do anything unethical. And then you’re taking it a step further and declaring that Christians who take unethical actions in order to further the gospel are Not True Christians, right?
See the No True Scotsman logical fallacy
First of all, I never said that no Christians ever doing anything unethical. Never ever said that. I did not say that all people who behave unethically must therefore not be Christians. If that is what I seemed to say, its not what I meant. What I think I said was either they are not Christians OR they are not living the Christian principles they claim to believe in - or in other words they are still sinners. Which is in no way contrary to Christianity, the Bible makes it clear that believers continue to do wrong, and reality bears that out. Christians act unethically all the time. My point was that you cannot say that ALL Christians act unethically in the same way, and you cannot say that ALL Christians act unethically all the time. Christians often do very right and very good things as well.
What we were doing - as I see it now - was trying to scare people into the kingdom using the threat of hell. Not something I’d call ethical or kind.
Would you call it unethical or unkind to show people videos or portrayals of the horror of AIDS and other STDs in order to dissuade them from engaging in unsafe sex? i doubt it. you may disagree with the existence of hell, but i don’t see it as unethical, unkind or unreasonable to say to people “if you do this, then this is the consequence.” why is it wrong to want to scare people away from (at least what you see as) a real and terrible possibility?
What we were doing - as I see it now - was lying to people about the true purpose and composition of the group, then pulling a bait-and-switch once they joined. This is considered unethical and sometimes illegal in business.
If it really was marketed as completely neutral, then yes, that was dishonest. it should be made clear who is sponsoring an event. but if it is clear that a Christian organization or Christian church is sponsoring a discussion, a person attending should hardly be surprised at there being Christians present who have a vested interest in furthering that point of view. To say otherwise is just being deliberately ignorant.
However, this was not marketed as an evangelical ministry but as a cultural exchange. Parents who sent their kids on the exchange were not told they would be subjected to proselytizing or churchgoing. One girl converted and then faced a lot of trouble from her family when she returned to them witnessing for Jesus (they were non Christians). Rather than rethink this ministry, we quoted the bible verse about how the gospel will turn family members against each other and figured we were doing exactly what Jesus wanted.
If this is really as you describe it, then yes, there are serious ethical problems here! The extent of what the children are going to be exposed to should be made clear to the parents beforehand, and it is an abuse of parental rights not to be transparent about that. Not to mention a poor and confusing method of evangelism, because if these kids are going to go home to a non-Christian community, how are they supposed to sustain their new found faith anyway? I agree with you, if it really is as you described, that this is a terrible idea.
What this group was doing - as I see it now - was using material goods to bribe vulnerable people into attending a highly emotional, overwhelming revival service so they would convert. It was not only unethical, but it was also disrespectful to assume that Orthodox believers are unsaved or do not “know” Jesus. It was also unethical to “steal” people away from the Eastern Orthodox churches where they had been raised and perhaps found great comfort and beauty.
I have a question - did they require church attendance in order to receive these items? If not, then I can’t see the problem. How is it wrong to give people a gift and then give them an invitation?! The people are free to turn the invitation down if they really aren’t interested! Perhaps they saw the charity of these Christians, and perhaps they really wanted to know more about it all. Unless people were being forced or extorted into attending Church, then there is no ethical qualm there.
As far as “stealing” people from the Orthodox Church, that is a little more questionable. It is wrong to just assume off the bat that someone is not a believer just because they do or don’t belong to a particular church. The Evangelical belief is that the important thing is that a person believes in Jesus as their savior (not whether or not they are experiencing comfort or beauty). If that belief is happening for that person in the Orthodox Church, then an Evangelical Christian should be respectful and satisfied. If that belief is not happening, then they do need to be converted, not to any particular Church, but to Christ. If this was not their understanding or intention, then I would disagree with them as heartily as you would.
Does every true Christian that you know make it absolutely clear when they invite their friends and neighbors to a “holiday concert” or “family festival” at church that there is going to be an altar call or evangelical outreach?
Like I said above, I don’t think that a Church should have to make it explicitly clear that such things are going to happen. Anyone who goes to a Christian Church for a concert and is totally shocked and surprised when they find the Gospel being preached is just not thinking.
Amy, have you ever seen evangelical tactics like the ones I’ve described? If you’ve never seen such tactics, I’d ask how old you are. If these things are not done by the church now, that’s great. But they were absolutely part and parcel of my experience in 30 years of evangelical belief and ministry.
I don’t dispute that this kind of stuff still goes on, and that some of it may be unethical and misguided. I much prefer the one-on-one method of personal relationships and conversations.
But if you really believe you know the truth about something, of course you want to share it with people! you should never lie nor offer personal threats (the threat of hell is different, i am talking about threats of personal harm or other prejudicial treatment), but i see no ethical problem in evangelism itself.
Ugh, so many typos in that last post! Sorry! I really am enjoying the conversation, by the way, I hope you are too, Karen, and others who may be reading it as well.
First of all, I never said that no Christians ever doing anything unethical. Never ever said that. I did not say that all people who behave unethically must therefore not be Christians.
Amy, here’s exactly what you said and what I was reacting to in my comments (emphasis mine):
If what you are describing did indeed happen, then what they were doing was disgusting and contrary to the faith they claimed with their lips to believe but obviously did not believe in their hearts.
That sounds to me like you’re saying they’re not Christians.
If that is what I seemed to say, its not what I meant.
Okay, that’s different.
My point was that you cannot say that ALL Christians act unethically in the same way, and you cannot say that ALL Christians act unethically all the time. Christians often do very right and very good things as well.
I don’t deny the good at all. Indeed, I was involved in doing much good as a Christian. Nor did I ever say anything about ALL Christians ALL the time. In fact, I’ve tried to emphasize that I’m talking about my particular experience and my particular evangelical tradition.
My extension that “many, many evangelicals” behave in a manner that I now consider unethical is based on my own experience not only with individual evangelicals but with organizations, churches, para-church groups, etc.
All the things I described - some of which you agreed are unethical and some of which you disagree with, as I would expect - were not done by one or two isolated people. They were carried out enthusiastically by organizations and groups very much within the mainstream of the evangelical world.
I don’t dispute that this kind of stuff still goes on, and that some of it may be unethical and misguided.
Thank you. That’s the only point I was trying to make. Your assertion that evangelism itself, and specifically the threat of hell, is not offensive is an entirely different discussion, which I don’t have time to engage at the moment.
I really am enjoying the conversation, by the way, I hope you are too, Karen, and others who may be reading it as well.
I don’t know that anyone else is still reading!
My experience is that when I discuss this kind of thing with Christians they react very much as you did. I.e., they deny it or at least don’t recognize the unethical practices until they’re pointed specifically to where the unethical (or at least “misguided”) actions occur.
Like you, (and like I did when I was deconverting) once they take a step back and look a bit more objectively at the situation, they understand the problem. It’s not that they/we were deliberately trying to be unethical - it’s that we were so close to the situation and so completely focused on saving souls from hell that we never considered that the tactics we were using weren’t good ones. It got to be an “ends justifies the means” mentality when the focus on winning souls became all-encompassing, as it did in most of the churches I attended (Calvary Chapel amongst them).
If it helps you - and people like you - to rethink some of the uglier tactics of evangelism (particularly institutionalized evangelism), I’m very glad to participate in discussions like this.
“I don’t know that anyone else is still reading!”
Hi
Thank you. That’s the only point I was trying to make. Your assertion that evangelism itself, and specifically the threat of hell, is not offensive is an entirely different discussion, which I don’t have time to engage at the moment.
Well, if your only point was to say that many evangelicals do bad things, you are free to make it but i find it a rather pointless point. because so do atheists, police officers, republicans, democrats, doctors, kindergardteners, soccer moms, super models, etc. or you could just simplify and say many people do bad things, and the point would be just as useful. the fact is there are people in all categories who do bad things, and i am pretty sure we all realize that without it needing to be pointed out.
However, if you want to discuss whether or not the things you asserted really are in fact bad, why they are bad, and what to do about it, then that is the more useful discussion.
My experience is that when I discuss this kind of thing with Christians they react very much as you did. I.e., they deny it …
I don’t recall ever denying the problem, what I did was point out that the problem does not extend to all Christians.
…or at least don’t recognize the unethical practices until they’re pointed specifically to where the unethical (or at least “misguided”) actions occur. Like you, (and like I did when I was deconverting) once they take a step back and look a bit more objectively at the situation, they understand the problem.
How should I recognize unethical behavior until I am faced with a specific occurrence of it? As I said in an earlier comment, as both a member of the Catholic Church and an evangelical Presbyterian Church, I did not experience those kinds of evangelical techniques, so I was basing my comments on your descriptions. I did come to a better understanding of what you were saying because you gave very good examples. but I don’t think I have changed any of my views on Evangelicals or Evangelism. I was aware before this conversation that there are crooks and swindlers and misguided souls within the Evangelical community, that’s no great revelation!
If it helps you - and people like you - to rethink some of the uglier tactics of evangelism (particularly institutionalized evangelism), I’m very glad to participate in discussions like this.
As I said above, which of the tactics are and are not ugly and why would be a more interesting conversation, yes.