Evangelism is icky…or at least that’s what I keep hearing. I’m not convinced.
You may have heard that the Pope was criticized recently for reintroducing the Latin mass, which includes a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This has many Jews upset, and other groups are upset at Benedict’s recent statements that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church.
I’m not really sure why people react this way these days. Part of it is the rise of a Good Thing - tolerance - but I don’t think that is a sufficient explanation for why we’re so offended that other people think they’re right and that we should live as they live.
To some extent, I agree that we should live and let live. I have a Krups, you have a Mr. Coffee. I go to Old Navy, you go to Banana Republic (yeah, you, Aaron). Some differences in personal choice aren’t worth even mentioning, because they don’t matter.
But other issues do matter, and if you have thought about your way of understanding the universe and your role within it, and your relationship (if any) to a higher power (if one exists), I’d think you’d want to tell me about it and at least have a friendly argument. I’d hope you don’t think that something as important as how and why humans and the universe exist, and how we should live, are in the “true for me but not for you” category.
I don’t think we should go on from there to be jerks about these matters and hate or harm each other because of our differences. But how far can we go in saying that I have my religion, and you have yours, and we’re all fine here? These are things in which we really cannot all be right, and depending on which set of beliefs you hold, there may be big consequences to those beliefs (though, of course, it’s a common belief that there are no other-worldly consequences to what you believe).
I’m inclined to ask, then, isn’t it rather imperialistic and judgmental to be offended that other people think you’re unsaved or believe wrongly? Don’t most people in the world think that they are right and others are wrong, and isn’t that an OK thing to believe? Isn’t it a rather novel, elitist view that we’re all OK and shouldn’t worry about what other people believe?
I personally tend not to make assumptions about who’s OK with God and who’s not. God will do what he will. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to think I’m wrong.
When we speak out against any kind of religious judgment of others or claim to exclusivity (e.g. claiming that my tribe is the only one that will be saved, or whatever), we’re introducing another kind of exclusivity - the kind that says no one can be wrong or say someone else is wrong.
Now, I won’t go a step farther and say that it is then justifiable to commit acts of oppression or violence against people who believe differently. Certainly not. But I think the fear of such harm is what’s behind all the shock and distress over being judged as unfaithful by others. Maybe we need to work harder to separate the two.
I would much rather know that someone disagrees with what I believe and still treats me respectfully than I would like to hear that they think I’m fine even though my beliefs are diametrically opposed to theirs. I don’t find it helpful to pretend our massive worldview differences don’t exist. Unless we’ve lost them, they’re the perpetual, proverbial elephant in the room.
But I think we can live with the elephant. I think we can live and work together, comfortable in the knowledge that we believe different things. I think we can even want others to come around to our perspective, whether we’re talking politics, religion, or sports franchises.
At stake is nothing less than the survival of discourse itself. Humanity has been immeasurably enriched by our natural tendency to discuss our ideas, to debate, to disagree and argue and consider each other’s positions. We had a lot to learn about being nicer to one another, but I don’t think the rise of civility must be accompanied by a decline in discourse. The opposite should be true - as we become more able to treat each other respectfully, we should have more discourse and care even more about our beliefs.
This all comes to a head when we consider evangelism. It’s almost a dirty word, because it implies - gasp! - that we want other people to believe and live as we do. There is, I must admit, a certain amount of hubris and hypocrisy inherent in the evangelistic drive. If you want to convince others to believe as you do, you must believe that you’re at least mostly right and that your way of life is at least somewhat superior to the alternatives, even if you don’t live in complete congruence with your beliefs.
Perhaps what we’re talking about is a quest for truth, or enlightenment, or wisdom, or peace, or whatever you’d like to call it. Here’s what it will take for the evangelistic drive to thrive in a world where we’re actually decent to one another:
- We cannot use coercion of any type.
- We cannot use evangelism to serve our own interests. By definition, it is undertaken for the benefit of the other.
- We must remain open to learning and changing our own beliefs, if we are to expect this of others.
- We must continually address our own hypocrisy in failing to live by our own standards.
- We must listen as much or more than we expect others to listen to us.
If I’m OK, you’re OK, and evangelism is not OK, we have a problem, because that means no one cares about what they believe. In a world with no healthy discourse, we become so afraid of offending someone that we cease to believe anything or discuss our beliefs.
Discuss. Don’t just say that my opinion is fine for me to have if you disagree :).
Rats - you stole my thunder with your closing line. I was going to say “You have the right to your opinion; who am I to tell you what to believe?”
That said, I don’t think I agree with you, Justin. At least not fully. I think you’re confusing the role that you play concerning people with whom you have a close, trusting relationship vs. your role in the wider world.
It’s not just about “commit[ting] acts of oppression or violence against people who believe differently” - it’s about being respectful enough to keep your opinion to yourself unless it’s asked for.
Sure, don’t pretend our worldview differences don’t exist, but don’t feel like you’re doing God a service by pointing out everyone else’s errors, either.
I encounter a lot of Christians who seem to feel like it’s their duty to tell people that they’re in the wrong; like unless they “take a stand”, then they are “condoning sin”.
When I was young, my uncle divorced his wife and quickly remarried her [ex-]best friend. For a while, my parents felt like they needed to register their disapproval - first by shunning uncle altogether; then by talking to uncle but shunning his new wife. They didn’t carry it on forever, thankfully, but my point is that I think it’s counterproductive: it’s not a helpful way to accomplish the (theoretical) goal, which is repentance and restoration.
I like your list of caveats on seeking to change others/evangelism:
To the “hypocrisy” one, I’d add something about plank vs. speck - it’s really disingenuous to harp on a sin that Others are committing, while ignoring (or at least, giving less harsh treatment to) other sins that directly affect me and my group.
Daniel-
Thanks for the thoughts. I’m not saying we should go around confronting or being obnoxious to people a la Kirk Cameron, but I find it strange that the Pope (of whom I’m not a fan, BTW) is getting flak for saying things that virtually any person of faith could be expected to say - that he believes his faith is the correct one.
I find it strange that Catholics (or any other group) are expected to be embarrassed about their belief that non-adherents are not right with God. Very few people believe that just being religious is the key to salvation (however you define salvation) - you have to believe the right things and behave the right way.
We have taken to being insulted by this, though, as if it makes it impossible for us to get along. I think that’s an outdated assumption. People have killed each other over differences in belief in the past, and that’s led us to think that being open about differences must necessarily lead to conflict, at least if you take your beliefs seriously enough.
The solution is not to take our beliefs less seriously or water them down, but to actually be respectful to each other.
I have a really nice relationship with a woman of Jewish descent, who doesn’t actively participate in any religion and who lives her life based on personal ethics.
What I like about my relationship with her is our ability to look past what our differences are and reach toward the similarities. We talk about our beliefs all the time, but we don’t argue about them. In contrast, many evangelical Christians have a tendency to seek out the differences and point to them. I think this is why we tend to polarize one another in our current culture.
In focusing on differences, we define or compare ourselves to one another, which heightens conflict, distrust, misunderstanding, etc., etc. When we reach toward one another and embrace what we agree on, we can build a relationship that is built on trust and common ground.
It doesn’t mean that I am ignoring our differences, it means that I am celebrating what is alike between us. This is an act of peace.
In the Greek, there are two uses of the word judge and one is used as in a type of condemnation, while the other is used more as a judicial decision. When we are being “judgmental.” We are using the meaning that is condemning someone else and the truth is, we don’t know the state of their soul.
My feeling is that we can’t force someone to believe what we believe, so we must be content to live in such a way that we can positively impact their lives. Perhaps in doing that, they will be find our love appealing enough to want to access it.
Evangelism has to be more than just what we discuss. It has to be a way of living and a way of loving.
Well said, April.
As a general note, in this post I’m talking more about what we believe more than what we say. I’m not advocating any particular approach to evangelism, or saying you have to tell people what you believe whether they like it or not.
I’m saying that the idea that Catholics think Jews or Baptists are unsaved should not be offensive to us. I would fully expect someone of another faith to think that my faith was lacking, and I’m not offended by that, as long as they can still treat me with civility.
I don’t think there is a certain amount of hubris and hypocrisy in the evangelistic drive. I think there is a lot of hubris and hyposcrisy in people. I’m sorry if this comes across as playing with words in order to seem clever, but I think that that sentence needs to be challenged. After all, Jesus charged his disciples to spread the good news before he ascended. One may argue that evangelism is not optional for Christians.
I think what’s missing in our evangelism is the element of “good news”.
But what is civility? I think civility could be defined a million different ways by a million different people based on a million different cultures. Some people might think that the Pope’s broad declaration of everyone outside of Catholicism not being saved as an uncivil statement, and I don’t know that I would blame them. I don’t see it as a particularly peaceful move. I’m not surprised by it, but the idea that a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or whatever thinks that I am unsaved is rather offensive to me.
I grew up in Utah where I was a minority non-Mormon and it’s terrible to know that you are considered “lost” or “unsaved” or “damned” by virtually everyone else around you.
I think the problem lies in people trying to put a label on one another and thus excluding or including people’s membership to the elitist club.
Justin, I’ll apologize ahead of time for my lengthy response to your post but I feel it is warranted. I’ll respond to sections of your post in order.
“Evangelism is icky…or at least that’s what I keep hearing. I’m not convinced.”
Evangelism as we have traditionally conceived it is “icky” because (1)It is a contradiction of what it means to be a Christian and (2)Christians these days tend to be creepy anyways. But more on this below.
“I’m not really sure why people react this way these days. Part of it is the rise of a Good Thing - tolerance - but I don’t think that is a sufficient explanation for why we’re so offended that other people think they’re right and that we should live as they live.”
I’m not sure to whom you refer when you say “we” because the two offensive statements/actions that you reference are dealing with different groups of people. Jews would be offended by the first and Protestant Christians and everyone else would be offended by the second. The reason these statements/actions are offensive is because they are attempts to reinforce an exclusivist mindset in Christianity that revolves around security…and does so at the expense of entire groups of people. The result is a Christian narrative that writes groups of people out of the Christian story of God’s faithfulness to humanity. My concern is this: the act of writing these groups out of the Christian narrative has been used in the past to underwrite Christian actions that usurp the humanity of the Other (e.g., the Holocaust, expansion of the frontier, etc.). I realize that you do not endorse these things at all. However, you simply can’t have your cake and enjoy it too here. As a Christian, you should not affirm or respect such statements to any degree as they are intrinsically violent statements. They should be named and condemned for the violence they incur. The statement of the Pope must be called what it truly is: horsesh*t.
“I’d hope you don’t think that something as important as how and why humans and the universe exist, and how we should live, are in the “true for me but not for you” category. I don’t think we should go on from there to be jerks about these matters and hate or harm each other because of our differences. But how far can we go in saying that I have my religion, and you have yours, and we’re all fine here? These are things in which we really cannot all be right, and depending on which set of beliefs you hold, there may be big consequences to those beliefs (though, of course, it’s a common belief that there are no other-worldly consequences to what you believe).”
I’m still confused as to what vantage point you’re writing from. Are you just defending the right of the Pope (and others) to say such things as he did? Who is questioning his right to speak it? I think those speaking out against it are just saying he’s dead(ly) wrong…and so much so that he should shut his mouth. Now, you also seem to say that we don’t have the right to be offended when others are merely speaking their beliefs about things they take seriously (God, salvation, etc.). But just because someone has the right to hold and voice certain beliefs doesn’t mean you can’t be offended by them. If the Pope made a statement along the lines of “Everyone who has had the misfortune of being given a name that starts with the letter ‘J’ cannot be saved unless they change it to another letter,” are you just going to say “well gee, I don’t have a right to get pissed off because his belief concerns something serious”? I really don’t think so. Call a spade a spade and tell him he’s an idiot.
“I’m inclined to ask, then, isn’t it rather imperialistic and judgmental to be offended that other people think you’re unsaved or believe wrongly? Don’t most people in the world think that they are right and others are wrong, and isn’t that an OK thing to believe? Isn’t it a rather novel, elitist view that we’re all OK and shouldn’t worry about what other people believe?”
My answer to your first question there is “Imperialistic? No. Judgmental? Absolutely.” How in the world is it “imperialistic”? Can I not get offended at someone telling me that unless I become like them, I will spend my life in eternal torture? As for judgmental, yes, I’ll call that out anytime. Also, who thinks we “shouldn’t worry about what other people believe”? I know no one that thinks that.
“I personally tend not to make assumptions about who’s OK with God and who’s not. God will do what he will. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to think I’m wrong.”
And yet you don’t respect the right for someone to be offended?
“When we speak out against any kind of religious judgment of others or claim to exclusivity (e.g. claiming that my tribe is the only one that will be saved, or whatever), we’re introducing another kind of exclusivity - the kind that says no one can be wrong or say someone else is wrong.”
Those who are objecting to the Pope’s comments/actions are doing so not because they are making a general statement about whether people can be wrong or not, but rather because those statements/actions are racist, xenophobic, and anti-Judaic (and perhaps anti-Semitic)…not to mention that they are also contrary to the spirit of the witness of Jesus. Again, to be offended at such statements is not exclusive at all. If someone wrongly believes you are a rapist and they begin to proclaim this belief, are you limiting his freedom of speech by being offended and telling him to shut up? Is that being exclusive?
“Now, I won’t go a step farther and say that it is then justifiable to commit acts of oppression or violence against people who believe differently. Certainly not. But I think the fear of such harm is what’s behind all the shock and distress over being judged as unfaithful by others. Maybe we need to work harder to separate the two.”
This is the issue that I addressed above. It is impossible to separate intrinsically violent beliefs with violent behavior. You can distinguish them, but not separate…and considering Christianity’s report card with trying to separate the two, they might want to stay the hell away from that if they hope to gain some credit back in today’s world. It is a well-established fact that Christianity has been complicit (and in many cases directly responsible) for historical atrocities, including the oft-cited Holocaust. Auschwitz would not have been possible without Christian beliefs that gave them implicit justification. So when the Jews speak out against the Pope’s statements and actions that make such things possible, I think calling their statements “exclusive” or “imperialistic” is a bad idea.
“I would much rather know that someone disagrees with what I believe and still treats me respectfully than I would like to hear that they think I’m fine even though my beliefs are diametrically opposed to theirs. I don’t find it helpful to pretend our massive worldview differences don’t exist. Unless we’ve lost them, they’re the perpetual, proverbial elephant in the room. But I think we can live with the elephant. I think we can live and work together, comfortable in the knowledge that we believe different things. I think we can even want others to come around to our perspective, whether we’re talking politics, religion, or sports franchises.”
I don’t know anyone who pretends that these differences are not there so I can’t speak to the relevance of your statements.
“At stake is nothing less than the survival of discourse itself. Humanity has been immeasurably enriched by our natural tendency to discuss our ideas, to debate, to disagree and argue and consider each other’s positions. We had a lot to learn about being nicer to one another, but I don’t think the rise of civility must be accompanied by a decline in discourse. The opposite should be true - as we become more able to treat each other respectfully, we should have more discourse and care even more about our beliefs.”
You’re right here, but for the wrong reasons. The survival of discourse is at stake with these matters only because someone is trying to shut it down. The Pope is guilty here because he is making statements that label these people as essentially unnecessary. As for those offended, they are not attacking the principal of open discourse. It’s precisely the opposite. If someone breaks into your house to rob you and attempts to harm a member of your family, my guess is that you will harm that person to protect those you love. Does that mean your defensive action against that person indicates that harming people can be beneficial? Not so much. In the same way, being offended at someone making exclusive statements does not indicate a decline in discourse.
“Here’s what it will take for the evangelistic drive to thrive in a world where we’re actually decent to one another:
•We cannot use coercion of any type.”
The Pope’s comments/actions, which you indirectly defend in principle, underwrite coercive behavior.
•“We cannot use evangelism to serve our own interests. By definition, it is undertaken for the benefit of the other.”
By definition, evangelism is undertaken for the benefit of the self, not the other. One attempts to change another person’s behavior in evangelism because he/she believes that the other person is not living correctly (and in most cases in Christianity, with dire consequences). Saying it is for the benefit of the other is merely cloaking violence in the name of love.
•“We must remain open to learning and changing our own beliefs, if we are to expect this of others.”
Absolutely. But I will not consider or respect any beliefs that are intrinsically violent towards those whom I love and/or respect.
•“We must continually address our own hypocrisy in failing to live by our own standards.”
Again, I completely agree, but this will require Christians to jettison their traditional understandings of salvation and evangelism. If not, I believe that Christianity will indefinitely remain discredited.
•“We must listen as much or more than we expect others to listen to us.”
Again, I agree with what I understand your intent to be here but I will not listen to those who wish to harm those whom I love and/or respect.
“If I’m OK, you’re OK, and evangelism is not OK, we have a problem, because that means no one cares about what they believe. In a world with no healthy discourse, we become so afraid of offending someone that we cease to believe anything or discuss our beliefs.”
I believe that evangelism as we have conceived it is not ok but that certainly doesn’t mean I do not care about what I believe. It seems to me that that would imply the exact opposite. I just believe that “healthy discourse” does not constitute writing off entire groups of people as being inadequate to receive God’s eternal blessing just because they don’t agree with how you interpret Scripture or ecclesiastical tradition.
As much as I believe your post is intended to be an expression of goodwill towards others, I believe it is fundamentally misguided in that attempt. I hope you can interpret my lengthy response as being an expression of what you seem to be seeking in all of this: open discourse.
Hi thewalrus,
If the Pope said “Everyone who has had the misfortune of being given a name that starts with the letter ‘J’ cannot be saved unless they change it to another letter,” I would not be offended. I’d think “wow, that’s really stupid” and probably start paying even less attention to what he says. I think this is a better reaction than taking offense or accusing him of racism or something equally nasty.
The Pope is not calling for violence of any type, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind. You said “It is impossible to separate intrinsically violent beliefs with violent behavior.” I don’t think believing that someone else will not be saved is a violent belief. You’re equating past atrocities (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition) with the beliefs that the perpetrators held with the people who hold similar beliefs now, even though people now would never act that way.
Nor do I think that believing one faith over against another is racist, xenophobic, or anti-semitic. Even in the case of ethnically bound religions, such as Judaism, I’m not offended if people think they’re going to be saved and I’m not - even if I have no way of accessing salvation according to their belief system.
Say a person of XYZ religion comes up to me and says I’m going to the hell created for non-XYZ people after I die. Maybe they offer me the opportunity to convert, or maybe not, and they’re just rubbing it in. Why would I care if their beliefs, which I disagree with, say that something bad is going to happen to me after I die? No, I wouldn’t care, unless they start to mistreat or oppress me here and now because of their beliefs about me.
Has this happened in the past? Of course it has - some of history’s worst horrors were just this type of situation, where one group starts to think of others as sub-human because of their beliefs or way of life, and starts to harm that group using this perception as a justification.
This is not evangelism; it’s something else entirely. I’m not sure it’s at all useful to say that any particular feature of Christianity made the Nazi party’s atrocities “possible,” though Germany did happen to be largely Christian at the time, and the church could have done a lot more to intervene. It was certainly not a case of “Well, those Jews have bad theology according to our fine Lutheran doctrine, so let’s kill them all.”
“The Pope is guilty here because he is making statements that label these people as essentially unnecessary.”
Who’s saying that? I read his words as a statement of belief about what will happen to various groups of people after we die. He’s saying that the Jews (and presumably all non-Catholics, though Jews are singled out for their so-close status) will not go to heaven when they die. It has nothing to do with how we treat people here and now; it is (to him) a simple statement of fact. If in the name of evangelism we treat people badly, that’s another matter.
“By definition, evangelism is undertaken for the benefit of the self, not the other. One attempts to change another person’s behavior in evangelism because he/she believes that the other person is not living correctly (and in most cases in Christianity, with dire consequences). Saying it is for the benefit of the other is merely cloaking violence in the name of love.”
Why are you calling it violence? If person A is deluded into thinking he’s Elvis, is person B being violent by trying to help him realize the truth? I don’t think it’s an exact parallel to one group evangelizing another, but from that group’s perspective, it’s the same basic argument. I don’t think it’s violent for you to try to convince me of your viewpoint, as you are clearly doing (which I appreciate, by the way).
“I just believe that “healthy discourse” does not constitute writing off entire groups of people as being inadequate to receive God’s eternal blessing just because they don’t agree with how you interpret Scripture or ecclesiastical tradition.”
I’m not sure what faith tradition you’re coming from, but both Jews and Christians generally believe that salvation from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob comes through a covenant relationship with him. You do have to be a part of a certain group of people in order to be saved. There is of course profound disagreement about which group will be the recipient of salvation (Jews, Christians, Jews and Christians, Catholic Christians only, everyone who’s not an atheist, everyone period, church of Christ only, or whatever), as well as profound disagreement about what salvation means (going to heaven when we die, or being freed from oppression by foreign rulers, or something else entirely).
If you’re in the small minority of Westerners that believes that everyone is automatically saved (whatever you mean by that), do us all a favor and stop being so offended that not everyone agrees with you. And certainly don’t equate evangelism with genocide. Sheesh.
So, I don’t expect you to listen to people who want to harm you or those you love. I’m not sure what you mean by harm, though. Care to elaborate?
Perhaps it will be helpful to consider an situation where I’m on the receiving end of an evangelistic effort. Jehovah’s Witnesses come by our house fairly often, and give us their magazines and tracts. I have no doubt that they think I, as a non-JW, am going to hell (perhaps I am wrong about this, as I don’t know a whole lot about JW beliefs, but it will do as an example either way).
Do I accuse the nice JW people on my doorstep of contributing to the Holocaust? Do I accuse them of violence toward me and my family? No. They’re just sincere, polite people handing out magazines because they believe it’s the right thing to do, and they believe it’s helpful to those who are the recipients of their efforts, namely me. They are doing me the favor of extending to me the opportunity of receiving salvation, as they conceive of it. I disagree with them, but I have better things to do with my life than be offended by their sincere and non-harmful (if annoying) efforts.
What do you think of the JW efforts in this example? Are they acts of violence as you describe it? I’m struggling to understand how this is so terrible, beyond the fact that having them come to your door is a bit annoying.
Justin, the doctrine of salvation states that unless someone is saved they will spend the rest of eternity in torture. How is it possible that you do not think that is violent? When the Pope encourages the practice of Latin Mass (which includes language such as “lift the veil from the eyes” of the Jews and end “the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ”), he is essentially re-enforcing a narrative that has led to the atrocious acts we have mentioned such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. How do you know “people now would never act that way”? Do you really just think people are so enlightened today that they aren’t capable of tremendous violence? The problem here is that the Church has been discredited due to its participation in past acts of horrible violence. The fact that it can’t even recant the beliefs that led to those actions prevents anyone from hearing the Church’s pleas for reconciliation in such cases. It’s simply not a matter of holding a private belief like “I’m pro-gun control” or something. It’s the Pope. The man who publicly represents Christianity more than any other, and he is saying that Jews need to come out of their darkness? God forbid, truly. The irony is that if it weren’t for the Jews, the Christians wouldn’t even be able to be saved. How can you get grafted onto a tree that you’re trying to cut down?
There’s a big difference between “believing one faith over against another” and saying that those who don’t believe as you do should be tortured. That’s what the doctrine of salvation states whether Christians like that particular articulation or not. If I or my friends are told that we will be tortured if we don’t have the same beliefs or lifestyle as someone else does, yes, I have a problem with that. How you manage not to “care” about that is baffling to me. And yes, that is evangelism. It’s trying to convince someone that they should become like you so they won’t be tortured for eternity. It’s just manipulation wrapped in a nice package. You say “I don’t think it’s violent for you to try to convince me of your viewpoint.” I absolutely agree. But when you hold a theological gun to their head and say “you’ll be in hell if you don’t agree with me,” well that sounds awfully violent to me.
It is well documented that Christianity made Nazism and the Holocaust possible. The reason that’s “useful” to acknowledge is because it helps prevent it from happening again. What I’ve never figured out is why Christians have always felt so defensive about the matter. Maybe it’s because they realize their beliefs provide the ideological foundation for something like that to happen. Think about it. As you say, Germany happened to be largely Christian at the time, and we all know that the events of the Holocaust could not have happened without the support of everyday people like you and me. If there was a significant segment of the people who believed that Jews were no longer necessary in the story of God’s relationship with creation, Jews begin to seem rather expendable. And now we have the Pope asking people to repeat this story in the parishes? Why aren’t more people angry about this?
“If you’re in the small minority of Westerners that believes that everyone is automatically saved (whatever you mean by that), do us all a favor and stop being so offended that not everyone agrees with you. And certainly don’t equate evangelism with genocide. Sheesh..”
I don’t believe in a literal heaven or hell so I’m not even sure what “automatic salvation” would mean. I simply cannot believe that a God, who is love, would send his children into a place of eternal torture, no matter how awful their deeds. Any loving parent would never tolerate such a thing. If you really think I’m just offended because “not everyone agrees” with me, then you’ve misunderstood me entirely. If I became offended that you disagreed with me about my beliefs concerning taxes or health care, then you would clearly have a right to call me out. But that’s not the case here. In this case, the most public Christian man in the world is telling people that I love that they do not belong in God’s story and that because of that, they will experience torture. (This is what I meant by “harm” in my previous post.) I never equated evangelism with genocide. I merely said that the logic of evangelism (as traditionally conceived) is a powerful ideological support for mass acts of violence.
As far as your Jehovah’s Witness example goes, I think I’ve already addressed it. If “nice,” “polite,” and “sincere” people believe doing the “right thing” is telling me or others that I don’t belong in their story and therefore, must go to hell unless I become like them, then I will be offended and likely respond with something colorful in return.
Again, I don’t believe you personally wish any ill-will towards others. Nothing I’m saying here is intended personally. I’m only trying to engage your beliefs and show you where they lead. They are harmful and they prevent a large number of people from ever experiencing what I believe to be some powerful truths in Christianity. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and engage me in this debate.
Hi thewalrus,
I share your belief that there is not an eternity of torment awaiting those who believe the wrong thing. I would like to think, though, about whether believing others will go to hell is inherently violent.
From within this belief system, saying someone will go to hell is like saying that if you load a gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger, you’ll die. The topic is violent, but it’s not a threat - simply a statement of fact. Warning someone of imminent danger is doing them a favor. If you disagree with the person about whether the danger exists, their warnings are going to seem annoying, but not inherently violent.
I could turn out to be wrong, but I really believe the use of violence in the name of evangelism is behind us permanently. I think we learned that lesson.
Saying Christianity made the Holocaust possible is a little like saying oxygen made it possible - it is an undeniable part of the context for what happned, but can hardly be blamed for the choices people made to do evil.
While I can see how a view that the Jews are persistently unrepentant could lead to anti-Semitism, I don’t think this represents an evangelistic viewpoint at all. The proper response to someone else’s refusal to believe as you do is sadness, not writing them off in this life as well as the next. ‘Shaking the dust off your feet’ is not the same as mass murder.
In all of this, the fact that people who believed certain things did certain bad things in the past does not mean that the beliefs caused the actions, or that the beliefs are wrong or bad. Even if you found Hitler’s diary saying something like ‘the Jews are going to hell anyway, so let’s speed up the process and wipe them out,’ (which I doubt he spelled out, if he even thought it) I think it would be more accurate to read that as self-justification rather than a valid rationale.
People who do evil things almost always justify their actions along the lines of the belief system they purport to share with their constituents. I don’t think it’s fair to read that after the fact as cause and effect.
Assuming I haven’t won you over completely :), I look forward to continuing our discussion.
Justin, you said that you don’t believe in hell for people who believe the wrong thing. Does this mean you don’t believe in hell at all? Just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
“From within this belief system, saying someone will go to hell is like saying that if you load a gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger, you’ll die. The topic is violent, but it’s not a threat - simply a statement of fact. Warning someone of imminent danger is doing them a favor. If you disagree with the person about whether the danger exists, their warnings are going to seem annoying, but not inherently violent.”
Ok, I’m not even sure you recognize what you’re saying here. Let’s take an example. Let’s say that I believe that if you continue to write posts for this website containing beliefs that I disagree with, you will be brutally murdered for your actions. I can only assume that you would rightly see that as an utterly ridiculous and irrational belief. And yet, I think to myself “I’m only doing him some good. I’m saving him from saying things that might lead other people astray. If he continues to write posts, knowing that I’ll kill him, he himself is loading the gun, pointing it at his head and pulling the trigger. It’s not me doing it to him. He chose his own fate. I warned him about what I believed and he didn’t listen. Now he has to pay the consequences.” Now, just for clarification, I’m not that psychotic and I have no intentions of harming you. In fact, I hope you do continue to post so we can have more to argue about! But if that’s not an inherently violent and extremely jacked up scenario, then I am concerned about your abilities to reason after all :). It truly is the same logic.
If a person’s belief provides justification to a horribly violent action, I’m pretty sure that’s playing a larger instigating factor than air going into their lungs. Let’s stick with the example I gave above. Even if I did not believe that you would lead people astray by writing more posts, I could still kill you (even without the belief). But I’m a good person…and good people typically don’t do horrible things…unless they believe that in doing them they’re doing what’s right. In killing you, I’m only doing what’s right. When it comes to religious beliefs especially, you don’t need a “valid rationale.” All you need is “self-justification.” The belief truly does make all the difference in the world. I’ve never said the beliefs caused the perpetrators to do it. It’s just that without the belief, they wouldn’t have done it. It’s a subtle but real distinction. In fact, according to your logic, it was you that caused me to murder you. It wasn’t my belief that caused it. You had the choice not to write and you didn’t do it. You led me to do what I had to do…according to my beliefs.
“While I can see how a view that the Jews are persistently unrepentant could lead to anti-Semitism, I don’t think this represents an evangelistic viewpoint at all. The proper response to someone else’s refusal to believe as you do is sadness, not writing them off in this life as well as the next. ‘Shaking the dust off your feet’ is not the same as mass murder.”
The problem is that such “sadness” is too condescending to ever be for the other person’s good. The point of evangelism is to convince someone that your way is the right way. Christianity, in my opinion, does not involve a particular kind of lifestyle or system of morality or set of doctrines. Christianity is about love, faith, hope, survival, friendship, etc. It’s also about affirming the Other’s personhood and freedom in the way they represent those things. The kind of evangelism that you are defending is about changing the other person to do it your way…to make you more comfortable because sameness doesn’t threaten like difference.
Well, you almost won me over but you kept writing your damn posts…;). Nah, keep writing my friend, no violence from this corner.
Hi thewalrus,
My perspective is annihilationism, which I expounded about once upon a time here. Strangely, that post got no comments.
So no, I don’t believe people go to hell when they die - at least not by default; perhaps if someone is exceptionally bad, God could make an exception. If there is a hell, it’s for satan. I don’t see strong evidence for any other perspective in scripture.
There is one key difference between what you’re saying and what I’m saying: who does the killing/sending to hell. In your analogy, the evangelist is in the role of actually sending people to hell. I don’t think many people actually believe this, except perhaps some apostolic types who think anyone who opposes them is doing the work of satan.
If we make this change to your analogy, it might be something like this: I’m writing terrible things on my website, and some wacko decides to kill me to silence me. You hear about this plot somehow, and you warn me about it. You don’t have any intention of harming me yourself, but want to let me know of the imminent danger to my life.
If that’s true, though, then it’s never OK to believe something that someone else has ever used in self-justification. I think the oxygen analogy is still valid.
Self-justification is a matter of grabbing the nearest convenient belief and slapping it on the situation, regardless of whether the fit is appropriate. It’s like a heat-of-passion murder - if the murderer picks up a paperweight and smashes the victim’s head with it, we don’t say everyone with a paperweight is practically a murderer. Nor do we say that the murder wouldn’t have occurred if there was no paperweight; the murderer could just as easily have used a baseball bat or a rock.
It’s the same with self-justification - people just apply whatever belief their constituents will resonate with. Many are likely to call BS on this (mis)application, and rightly so. This should be evidence enough that the belief is not really linked to the behavior.
I agree that condescending attitudes generally aren’t helpful, though we all have them. It’s hard not to be condescending toward a person who, for example, is destroying their life with hard drugs. When we don’t share the same assumptions about what the spiritual equivalent of this is, the condescension seems inappropriate. I don’t know that there’s a way around that. We all look down on certain beliefs held by others - just not the same ones.
Regardless of whether I agree with your description of Christianity, my puzzlement remains as to why people are so deeply offended by the Pope’s statements. I understand why he believes what he believes, and I don’t believe he wishes anyone actual harm.
Probably more wars have been over religion and race than any other thing.
What the Pope should have offered is that we should in thought, word, and deed offer the Fruits of the Spirit to one another.
These bring peace and reconciliation.
Remember Christ’s theorem:
1. Do unto others as you have them do unto you.
2. The manner in which you treat the least person is the manner in which you have treated God.
3. God is the Father of every soul.
Justin, I’m submitting this again. I submitted this comment two days ago but for some reason it has yet to be posted. The last time that there was a delay, your response mysteriously came with it. I can only hope this is not the case this time. I certainly wouldn’t think that would be in the best interest of “open discourse.”
I’ll grant you that annhilationism is a step up from traditional conceptions of heaven and hell but I don’t think it’s much better. It’s still based on a reward/punishment system of justice which I think is contrary to a God of love. For God, justice is love. I don’t know what the cross could mean other than that. The fact that I grew up circumstances much more compatible with a virtuous “moral” life than Johnny McFelon doesn’t mean I’m necessarily a better person. There’s simply too many contextual factors to take into account for any kind of reward/punishment system to work. As for Satan, I don’t think he has much mythological value any more (and possibly never did).
As for the “change” to my analogy, I don’t have the slightest idea how that means anything different. Let’s work with it anyways. Let’s say I (analogy – evangelist) do warn you about Mr.”Wacko” (analogy – God) who’s going to shoot you because you’re writing things that aren’t in agreement with him. Keep in mind that in your analogy, even though I’m warning you about this guy, I’m still in agreement with his actions. I’m on his team, not yours. Granted, I’m trying to recruit you to my team but I’m not giving you much of a choice. Either join the wackos or you die isn’t exactly a great choice. So whether it’s me or Mr. Wacko doing the killing doesn’t make any difference if we believe the same things. It’s still taking away your humanity. It’s still cloaking violence in the name of goodwill.
I don’t know that I follow your thoughts here at all but I’ll give it a shot. First, I have no idea why my statement would never allow me to believe something that someone else has used in self-justification. Second, your murder analogy doesn’t make sense here. I’ve never said that holding these violent beliefs makes someone a murderer. I’m only saying that it would be more than wise not to subscribe to those beliefs because it puts you in bad company and enables a set of circumstances that are more likely with that belief present. On that note, your analogy also doesn’t work because the paperweight seems too arbitrary. The paperweight (analogy – the belief) was chosen precisely because it was the most powerful tool. They didn’t choose the baseball bat or the rock because they didn’t fit the scenario. It’s about justification. The fact of the matter is that the Germans didn’t just choose something else. The reason why is because this belief provided justification unlike any other tool. Sure, they could find a whole host of reasons to wipe out the Jews. But nothing, and I mean nothing, makes you feel more justified than having God on your team. That provides a bit more motivation than, for example, thinking that Jews are just ugly and should therefore be killed. The baseball bat and the rock don’t compare to the paperweight in this scenario because the paperweight came from God.
Why is it hard not to be condescending in that case? I certainly have no problem with it. Is it because you think they just “chose” to “destroy” their life? Why would anyone want to do that? The question “why?” is the one we like to avoid in such scenarios. I don’t know what you mean by “spiritual equivalent” whatsoever. I might need enlightening there. I disagree with a lot of your beliefs (apparently) but I do not feel that I hold any condescending thoughts or feelings towards you. I don’t get why you’re trying to justify condescension.
If I said that I believed that blacks are naturally more ignorant than whites, it’s safe to say that would be considered pretty damn offensive. And yet, it doesn’t offend you that someone believes that Jews will spend their eternity in fiery torture if they don’t change their beliefs to match those of Christians. Relative to the second belief, the first one seems almost nice. Whether the Pope wishes any harm is irrelevant. He represents Christianity and he’s making horrible statements about those of other faiths…and especially Jews. Like I said before, without the Jews, Christians don’t have a chance…that is, of course, if there was a heaven and all that but I’m working with tradition on this point. If the Jews go to hell, so do Christians.
Ah, so the spam catcher is the guilty one. I officially retract my hypothetical accusation
Hi thewalrus,
Spam filter again - I’m on the road and haven’t had internet access to approve comments manually. My apologies for the delay.
Couple of random notes:
I would say it’s more about covenant than reward/punishment.
Well said. A powerful point to consider.
What does that really mean? Can’t I simply complain that any given thing you or someone else does “takes away my humanity” as a sort of bludgeon to end the argument or get you to stop doing what you’re doing?
On the murder weapon / justification for genocide point:
How far do you take this, though? Hitler believed Jews go to hell, so I shouldn’t believe that, since I, like he, might leap to the conclusion that it’s OK to kill them. Hitler also believed it was OK to do cruel research on people with disabilities. Does that mean I shouldn’t believe in doing research, since it might lead me to be cruel to people with disabilities? I can’t really buy the guilt-by-association argument, since inevitably the associations we deem unacceptable are chosen too arbitrarily.
The paperweight didn’t come from God; that’s what we claim when we want to show others we’re right.
The fact remains that many good, kind people believe that XYZ group is going to hell, and rather than being motivated to commit acts of violence toward that group, they are motivated to offer a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name. Both responses are possible, and the latter is far more prevalent (though the former response tends to get more attention and be more memorable).
I do think it’s useful to draw a distinction between racial and theological generalizations. It’s widely accepted that you don’t say bad things about other people based on their race. However, we’re under no obligation not to say that we think another group’s religious beliefs are wrong. You feel no hesitation in speaking out against the Pope’s religious beliefs, nor do I. The Pope said the Jews’ beliefs don’t get them to heaven. Whether you agree with that or not, it’s a theological statement on par with your statement about the appropriateness of his statement.
Sorry if that’s a bit random.
Hey Justin, classes just started for me so my responses might not be as timely but I’m giving it my best shot.
Aren’t covenants supposed to be mutual? Non-believers are by definition not in a covenant with God so why should they be punished? And especially punished with either eternal torture or “unconscious non-existence” (a term which begs the question as to what conscious non-existence would be).
By “taking away your humanity” I simply meant that it doesn’t really allow you any “self-agency” so to speak. Saying “do this or you will suffer for eternity” might technically seem like a choice but it really doesn’t seem like one that would be offered from a God Who is Love. So sure, if I say that it “takes away my humanity” when you offer me that kind of choice, I’m not using it as a rhetorical trump card. I’m simply stating what I think to be true.
I have no desire to make a guilt-by-association argument. The Holocaust is just an easy thing to reference. I’m not saying that your beliefs just make you another Hitler or anything like that. Here’s what I’m saying. I know that you will likely not take your beliefs in an overtly violent direction. In fact, I think it’s likely that few will. But the fact that the underlying logic of those beliefs could lead someone to enact such violence is what should give you pause. It should mean those beliefs need to be (re)considered. Now, on face you’re right, that doesn’t mean they should be automatically rejected. But it should give you pause. When it is said that an entire group of people are written out of God’s story based on their “wickedness,” one should take the time to really think through it. Why do the Jews get eternal torture (or “annihilation”, which also seems rather horrific) for not having the same beliefs as you? Were certain people just blessed with a monopoly on truth? How did we manage to kick the Jews out of their special spot and take it from them? My argument isn’t all about overt, physical violence (although I’ll grant that I have focused on it too much). I’m saying that these beliefs are “violent” because they are antithetical to a Christianity that professes to represent a God of love.
I’m guessing you’re agreeing with me here. You’re right. When people claim certain beliefs are from God, it does serve as a rhetorical (and in some cases ideological) trump card.
Many good, kind people might believe that but does being good and kind keep you from being wrong? Why offer a cold cup of water to someone when only you (and others like you) are the one who thinks they need it? Can you see how condescending that is? You and others have the right to believe anything you want. I don’t think I’ve ever denied that. But those who don’t have those beliefs, like me, have the right to be offended by it as well. I simply cannot understand how you are defending someone’s right to believe something but you don’t think it’s ok for someone else to believe that they’re wrong (and in this case be offended). My “religious” belief is that the Pope is representing beliefs that are the antithesis of what I understand Christianity to be about.
You haven’t addressed my statements concerning the necessity of the Jews to the Christian story. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts here.
This paragraph absolutely baffles me. Why should social convention govern here? Saying bad things about other people that are solely based on their race is wrong. Saying bad things about other people that are solely based on their religious beliefs being different than yours is also wrong. Again, the mere fact that the Pope stated beliefs that are different than mine is not offensive to me. It’s the fact that his beliefs (which symbolically represent Christianity) consign an entire group of people (which just so happens to coincide with their race) to eternal torture because they don’t agree with him. That is offensive to me because it references people that I care about. I also care about making the world a better place and I find that the teachings of Jesus are profoundly valuable in making that happen. The Pope’s beliefs, on the other hand, are not.