Sub-Title: De-Constructing Evangelism & the Re-birth of the Story of Jesus Among Us
An older and loving parishioner would often illustrate his displeasure at evangelistic tactics by conveying a story from before his new birth. Laughing, his eyes tingling with triumphant delight he added. “And so I heard the one young Christian brag to another, ‘Well, that’s my 10th convert today’ ” ...so I thought to myself. ‘Buddy, you didn’t convert me. I just repeated whatever you asked to get rid of you’. Then he always added. “I wasn’t gonna be a notch on his gun.”
I would respond with a smile, appreciate the theology and wonder at his inability to apply it to himself, now as a Christian. He was never guilty of being motivated by success, as the young man of his description clearly was. But he was often guilty of being unaware of how his love motivated evangelistic style left others feeling exactly the same way he felt, a cog in the wheel, objectified by judgment—even as he would urge, kindly, the need for the new birth. This was especially true if he was talking with a friend or family member or employee over whom he had authority. The very real fear of relational loss if they rejected his appeal, given in earnest and by love now complicates everyone’s perception of themselves and to him. What had been an easy going banter suddenly turns awkwardly serious. 'Will I hurt him? Will he reject me if I’m not interested? Why am I suddenly not in his league? Should I just go along, say what he wants and make this go away?' Such are the concerns of those in power relations to us when we tell our Jesus Story; Be they employees under us, daughters, grandchildren, even friends. Love actually complicates the vulnerability of persons being evangelized, for now a wall is erected, by us, for the purpose of 'saving' the other. It is a wall between us and the world—which we ourselves construct—for we are shaped to see the world as "us" and "them;" Saved and unsaved—no longer just co-equals, children of God.
The attached critique1 by a former Christian of evangelical stripe desperately needs to be heard. I ran across it in our Naz Pastors Think Tank. His central argument is that most evangelism is ineffective; the real purpose being to reinforce Christian tribal identity—The awkwardness being a kind of glue that makes "us" in Christ stick together and separately from “them“. He argues that this 'objectifying' of the 'other' is actually deepened, the more personal the appeal.
I can hear your questions like a bright light flashing against a dark starless sky. "Uh, Terry, isn't this "us" and "them" thing taken to a bit of a PC extreme? And, so what if our loving testimony is badly received... better our human relation impaired than 'they' be lost in hell?"
If I believed, as I once did, that unless 'they' become like 'me' then 'they' are lost to God and their own humanity, the answer is decidedly yes! Further, if I believed, as I once did, that my purpose is to win 'converts' to Christ or Christianity from another allegiance, again your questions are well taken.
May I suggest there are two problems with that gospel. First, there is nothing in the ministry of Jesus that suggests he perceived 'faith' as unavailable to anyone; quite the opposite—the woman at the well, the Roman centurion, the woman caught in adultery were all received as having immediate access to the Living God, as he did. "Believe me, woman," he says to the Samaritan woman—whom he should have perceived as beneath him by religion, race and gender—"the time is coming when you and your people will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You and your people worship what you don’t know; we worship what we know because salvation is from the Jews. But the time is coming—and is here!—when true worshippers will worship in spirit and truth. The Father looks for those who worship him this way" (John 4: 21-23). And to the woman considered outside Israel, the result of her adultery he simply said; "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on, don’t sin anymore” (John 8: 11b). Evidently conversion is a process that follows relation, not the condition of relationship—or maybe he just hadn't read his '4 Spiritual Laws', as yet.
In truth, the only community Jesus ever addresses the need to first change was the People of God, who turned God's ever present YES to all humanity into an "us" and "them". Of 'us' he says: "You travel over sea and land to make one convert. But when they’ve been converted, they become twice the child of hell you are" (Matthew 23: 15b).
So, I think the author of the attached article is getting at something that we who are in Christ need to hear; precisely because the birth, life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ was in the Trinity of God’s heart from before creation (Rev 13:1-8) and so there is no one on the other side. There is no “us versus them.”
In the most profound sense everyone is already redeemed in Jesus; the only issue being when and how will each woman and man and child awaken to the God who is—if at all?
Several of us in this stream—(referring to my colleagues in the Naz blog)—have reflected that the author “used to be a Christian and Pastor“ and so walked away, as if that prejudices rather than informs wisely his perspective. From God’s perspective it is very possible that this person is actually more like Jesus today than he ever was trying to win converts. I will leave that with Jesus and him.
Evangelism throughout the centuries has often been at the edge of a sword or at the point of a spear. It is the powerful converting the weak.
I sat with a young Samoan who is discovering his own history and is keenly aware Christianity was not native to his islands and so now is wrestling with how to be Christian in his own native skin. Now, I don’t know very many Samoans who are not Christian—if I asked, they would all say, “we are”. Yet this urban American Samoan wrestles, in my opinion, not with Jesus, but the church. The gospel received came by means of white missionaries and was gladly received by a village King who saw “white men coming on great ships” as the fulfillment of an ancient Samoan prophecy and who utilized his new faith, much like Constantine, to convert the whole island and secure his reign.
At the heart of evangelism is this us versus them—hence, whether we are giving words or love, it is we who are doing the giving and they hopefully the receiving… that is the nature of the transaction psychologically and why the author, I think rightly, finds it problematic.
I would suggest the only place where evangelism has been relationally equal is among exilic communities, because power or being empowered is often around or underneath the transaction.
A slave and a master within the church are suddenly sisters and brothers (Philemon 1), co-equals, the slave aspiring to become a pastor-teacher over the house-church of which they are both members; but only for the hours they are together in the Presence of The Bread of life. Once they leave Church the historic power centered relation reasserts itself as the slave carries for the master his belongings, evidence of his station.
The gospel lifts all women and men into a more human, natural state. Where the gospel brings equality and celebrates diversity liberation follows for the slave and master alike, for the powerful and marginalized as one; each saved from their false narratives about what being human is all about.
The distortion of evangelism is when liberation is really about the marginalized stepping up and into the privileges of the majority; the former slave becoming the master, the poor becoming the entrepreneurial rich, the ‘them’ becoming ‘us’.
Much of western missiology has been infected with a misplaced focus on the third world becoming first world. Our missionaries professed a gospel that was declared to be post-cultural, utilizing Paul’s description that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). What Paul intended as a liberating dimmunition of power relationships—a reconciling new humanity—was too often being communicated as “leave them” and “join us”.
To First Nations people’s throughout the world the call was to “touch not the unclean thing” interpreted too often as cultural norms. As a result Native Americans stopped drumming, Samoans stopped dancing and in the heat of the African desert, white shirts and ties replaced traditional sacred garments. Jesus, God incarnate, was being presented as asking the world to de-skin or more accurately put on European skin in order to follow him.
What is the cost to Western Christianity of de-legitimizing of First Nations cultural experience? The very good news about God becoming human, growing up Jewish and voluntarily laying down his life at the hands of the judgmental religious working in tandem with the empire—of surrendering love reconciling all people groups to one another and humanity to God is instead transformed into ‘them’ becoming like ‘us’.
A subtle “I’m okay, you’re not okay” enters into every dialogue, conversion from one way of being to another instead of contrition (continuing) being nurtured in light of the call to perfect love or being transformed from moral chaos toward human wholeness. Power by way of comparative religions and cultural stories re-asserts itself, now inside every human dialogue.
I grew up in the church and was uncomfortable with anyone who was not a Christian, because they were “the other". As a devout young follower there was not a day that went by when I did not fear that I might miss an opportunity to speak about Jesus and so save somebody. It literally had the impact of making me third person in all my relations; watching myself relate with others and constantly asking, ‘am I pleasing you God?’ Now, it also had the positive benefit of giving me self-awareness and people awareness as a pastor.
About twenty years ago I relaxed and stopped believing it all hung on me (pun intended), instead of Jesus. I remember consciously thinking, the only persons I want to convert is believers, awaking to this incredible God. I will not impose Jesus on anyone and have and will happily pray with Muslims and Christians of different stripes—Jehovah’s Witness or LDS, as examples. My purpose remains much the same… To live Jesus—sacramentally. I seek to break bread with all and focus on how God continues to convert me. I am happy to reflect with persons of contrite heart what the Holy Spirit is revealing to me from within the Creators character. I’m pleased to talk freely of Jesus of Nazareth as remembered by the Church and as my friend and mentor, as I would naturally in the course of laughter and intimate conversations with any friend.
However, I have come to learn that Jesus and his kingdom is alive in and in between every human I have ever met, whatever their faith tradition; and now enjoy looking for him. I’ve also come to realize that there are many who are far more loving than me, who do not follow Jesus of Nazareth.
And evangelism? I've retained both the name (ever trying to reshape it) because at core it is the celebration of life; God is knowable. I am pleased to make disciples, to baptize, even as Jesus continues to convert me from American Evangelical Christianity into what? ... one, who in community, shares bread and wine with all who will. Well, not wine; I'm a Nazarene! Blessings! Terry :) See my latest Podcast, a Devotional on Luke 12: 13-21: Wealth, Power & Anxiety
https://youtu.be/SyxQjnzPyDg Note1 The article which brought my attention to all this: Twenty One Pilots & the Evolution of Evangelism https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2019/07/24/twenty-one-pilots-and-the-evolution-of-evang
Comentarios