Osler's Razor

The problem with evangelism is that it relies mostly on unsolicited proselytization. I was struck by something a Hindu theologian said on "The Colbert Report" one night. She said her religion accepts converts, but that they require that the convert come to them. That way, a seeker comes asking for the good news, rather than being put off by an imposition on one's time and awareness.

Of course, Hinduism has far less adherents than Christianity.
 

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that, Lane. I've always had a problem with overt evangelism, because I don't believe Christianity is "better" than other religions, and I think that's the message that so often comes across in those situations, as Osler says.

Now, if we want to show others the best of Christianity, in hopes that they will want to be Christians, too, I think good works is the way to do it, not proselytizing. Helping orphans, building schools, offering medical care to those who need it: those are the kinds of things I support in the name of evangelism. I think they do a much better job of showing Christian love than just telling people about it, or being coercive where it's not welcomed.

(I have some strong feelings about this because I have a cousin and his wife who are missionaries in India. They are there to evangelize and convert, nothing more. They knowingly endanger the lives of the local people who work with them, because a regional political group is actively hostile toward Indian Christians and to the efforts of missionaries to convert people: they beat them up, burn their houses, those kinds of things. I admire my cousins' conviction and faith, but it's very hard for me to condone what they are doing with it.)
 

I don't have a problem with overt evangelism, actually. Though I'm not the kind of person who often does it, I think there are times it is appropriate to talk to someone else about Christian faith in an open way.

What I'm talking about here is one way of doing that which I don't think works, and probably alienates people like Swissgirl and Lane.
 

I have always felt that there is something overly paternalistic (and insulting) about overt evangelism. It's like the evangelist is saying, "I know what's best for you, and you should do this, because you don't have a brain." Certainly not everyone feels this way -- especially those in need of a positive message and / or guidance, which Christianity provides. But when the evangelist is using too large a paintbrush, many others feel alienated or turned off, as Prof. said.
 

As one of few reader's of this blog who engaged in overt evangelism for two years as a full-time missionary and who continues to engage in overt evangelism whenever the opportunity presents itself, I think I may have a unique perspective to share.

While I can only speak for myself, I'm sure most who share their faith are not motivated by arrogance. My faith is like the most amazing chocolate ever made. To eat it fills me with joy, peace, love, etc. . . . It tastes so good that I want others to have the chance to taste it too. And if I didn't offer it to others, it would show utter disdain and hatred for my fellow human beings. I know what it's done for me, and I'm certain it can do the same for others.

It's true that merely sharing our belief isn't the best way to get people to try our chocolate. But if it's coupled with questions to find out about the person we're sharing our belief with, sincere listening, sharing doctrine, being an example of a believer, inviting, and most importantly, pure love, our testimony of truth becomes a capstone to our message.

Regarding inviting, the most effective evangelizing does not ask people simply to take our word for it. We should invite them to investigate our message for themselves and approach God in prayer to ask whether it is True. And God has promised that He will reveal the Truth through the power of His Holy Ghost.

And Prof. Osler is exactly right: Our message must be tailored to each individual, which really isn't that hard. If we're motivated by love, then we'll want to get to know people just to get to know them and be their friend, for no other purpose than to be their friend. Whether or not they accept our chocolate should never affect that friendship.

Just thought I'd share.
 

Craig writes: "It tastes so good that I want others to have the chance to taste it too. And if I didn't offer it to others, it would show utter disdain and hatred for my fellow human beings."

Not "offering" your belief system to others is equivalent to your disdaining and hating them? Wow. That's one way to justify proselytization. Hate me, please.
 

I don't see the problem with "This tastes so good, you should try it."

However, the NEXT Step should be:

"Then the person either tries it, or doesn't and the person doing the offering thinks: If you like it, Great! If you don't? whatever."

In my experience, this rarely ends that way....

I don't see the point of "missioary-ing." I have been "missionaried" a lot of times, people trying to get me to believe in God. I am HAPPY for them that they have God in their life, I envy them a little , even! HOWEVER, I CANNOT DO IT. CANNOT!!! CAN NOT. I have tried and I KNOW how great Religion is. I KNOW what faith can mean in a person's life Don't you think that if I COULD have done this I WOULD HAVE?? Like years ago???

No hard feelings. Let's stay friends lets be related whatever, I have room to love a lot of people in my heart and I know they mean well. BUT THEN, PLEASE PLEASE do not come to my house for a birthday party where there are lesbian moms, parents of a friend of my son's and try to talk to them about how what they are doing is WRONG and against God Then you are NOT a Missionary. then you are just an ass.
 

I don't have a problem with people talking openly about their faith: I mean, that is what we're doing right now, isn't it?

I have a new friend who speaks of her relationship with God, in some way, in every conversation and usually often. She doesn't do it in a coercive way at all; it's just matter-of-fact, something that's a huge force in her life, just as you say, Craig.

I'm pretty okay with that. It does make me look at myself and question my own relationship with God--makes me feel a bit inadequate, actually--but mostly I'm okay with it.

But like you, Kiel, I feel that systematized evangelism, particularly the type that attempts to convert people who already practice a different religion, is highly paternalistic; a type of colonialism. My missionary cousins have someone on their staff whose job it is to locate the "strongholds of the devil"--the Hindu temples! They actually said this to me.

I just think that, especially on a more macro level, DOING works that show God's love is a much more productive form of worship and witness than attempting to convince someone in the way Osler mentions, and certainly more loving and fruitful than Tyd's example.
 

Tyd, I meant "the example you gave" of the person coming into your house telling the lesbian moms they were doing wrong . . .
 

In fairness to Craig, the one time I was approached by Mormon missionaries (who are doing something more essential to the practice of their faith than your standard evangelicals) I politely told them that I had once been a Christian but no found that I no longer believed it. They thanked me for my time, and wished me well on my snowboarding trip, and told me that if I ever changed my mind their church would be waiting. I found that very courteous and not at all off-putting, I suppose because of their politeness and willingness to accept my heathen nature.

Contrast that with the evangelical "missionaries" I was approached by when at college. I was sitting on a park bench trying to eat my lunch and read some philosophy for a class I had coming up, and this guy sat down next to me and just started talking. His "friend" stood beside him offering very loud praises and "amens!" after almost every sentence this guy said. He said his purpose was to save me from Satan, so in order to annoy him, I told him that I had dedicated my life to the service of the Dark Lord and that I wished for nothing more than to be eternally tortured for the corrupting of America's youth. He left all huffy.

Again, I think it has to do with the presentation. I don't mind frank conversations about religion or my lack thereof. As long as everyone wants to talk about it, I say let's have a fruitful and productive discussion. But if someone doesn't want to talk about religion at the moment, it hardly helps to be pushy. And if someone says, "I'm fine, thanks," I think the best thing to do is to thank them for their attention and move on.
 

The biggest problem I've always had with overt evangelism is that from the outset, it takes the position that something is missing from your life, and it's up to the evangelist to show you what it is. That's always seemed like a pretty arrogant position to me.
 

I've really never had anybody do anything in that vein of evangelicalism to me, but, as a Protestant Christian growing up in the 2000's, I've had plenty of kind of weird faith-related dilemmas.

Before I begin, I have to say I have nothing against fundamentalist Christians, it's just that this encounter happened to me back when I was ten and I had to deal with the kid in my story every day for a week, two hours a day. It kinda sorta scarred me for life. There. I said my disclaimer.

You see, three years ago, I went to a Boy Scout summer camp for a week. I was still a "Tenderfoot" (worst name ever for a rank, by the way), so I had to take a "B-P Rank Advancement Course" for two hours every day to help me work towards First Class. There were about twenty Tenderfoots (yes, "Tenderfoots", not "Tenderfeet") in our troop, so we got lumped with another troop and got divided into random groups who we would work with. I was in a group with only one of my friends.

About halfway through the first day, a kind of tall kid walks up to my friend and I. The first thing that he does isn't to greet us, or to maybe introduce himself, but he asks us if we're Christians. I say yes, rather taken aback by this odd remark. Make what you will of his next words that were directed towards me:

"No you're not! You're a Satan worshipper! You have a Harry Potter book in your tent! JK Rowling is the Devil incarnate! She was behind 9/11! Repent or go to Hell! Hey, you didn't way whether you were a Christian!"

My friend, a Methodist, weakly said yes.

"I've got some advice for you. Quit hanging around with heathans like this! Repent!"

Wow. Not only had this guy apparently broken into my tent to see my copy of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, he was saying that all people who read it would go to Hell.

Each day it was a new rant, sometimes about Revelation, sometimes about 9/11, sometimes about how evil Al Gore and all Democrats were. One time he even started to rant about Pokemon being creatures of evil. You can see how this annoyed me. He even said hanging out with others of different faiths was a sin. That scared me even more. I have friends who are Jews, Muslims, and even atheists.

I really would have preferred Craig's method of "this religion is amazing and transforming, but we can still be friends if you don't want it".
 

Just two short thoughts.

1. The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty (the novel, not the movie) is a very moving tale of one Catholic priest dealing with faith and religion in the 20th century. It's fascinating. (And a little scary.)

2. This past summer, in D.C., there was a guy who would walk around near the Navy Memorial with a megaphone and preach every day during lunch. One day, he's preaching something bland and some guy yells "Hey! Shut the f*** up!" The Preacher paused for a second, then asked, kinda politely, "What'd you say?" After The Commenter repeated his request, The Preacher replied, "Shut the f*** up? Shut the f*** up?! Why don't you shut the f*** up! God told me to tell you to shut the f*** up! So shut the f*** up!!" I actually never saw him again after that.