Wisdom, on the spreading of religion.

[theweaselking]

"[...][1] all of the various approaches taught or promoted by the various proponents of such evangelism are painfully awkward, intrusive and invasive yet still mainly ineffective, involving this weird mixture of forced intimacy and utter abstraction — and that’s when it goes well"

- Fred "slacktivist" Clark

And he's got a point there. But he's also got a point further:

"When we think of evangelism as “sharing our faith,” then, we’re starting off on the wrong foot and heading in the wrong direction. “Sharing our faith” isn’t likely to be perceived — by others or by ourselves, even — as “good news.” And it steers us all away from the best news, from the greatest of these.

If we have all the evangelism, but do not have love, we are nothing."

And he's generally right. The Christians I most respect are the ones who, like Fred Clark himself, abandon the most fundamental tenets of their religion when those tenets require them to be cruel. And I don't object at all when he says Christ demanded that people be kind and eschew cruelty.

My in-context objections[2] mostly appear when I point out that the teachings of Christ are diametrically opposed to the teachings of modern Christianity As She Is Practiced In The Real World, and that Fred Clark considers himself an outsider to his own religion because he quite frankly doesn't share any of the fundamental beliefs that define his religion.

[1] Fred includes the word "nearly" here, but he's wrong to hedge that way. There are *zero* approaches "taught or promoted" by proponents of "evangelism" that are not awkward, not intrusive, not invasive, or generally effective. Evangelism only ever works on evangelicals, and most humans don't think that way.

[2]: My out-of-context objections are, I think, already clearly established.

Comments

[kaph.livejournal.com]

I think I would like this Fred Clark of whom you speak.

"Evangelism only ever works on evangelicals, and most humans don't think that way." True, but you can guilt and twist people into believing. Or hype them into it; I'm not sure. My problem with evangelism (okay, one of them) is that it's fear-based. That's such a shitty motivator for anything, least of all a huge life change.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

He's a very smart guy who says smart and funny and kind things. I just wish, when he laments that the map doesn't match the territory, has never matched the territory, and doesn't even partially resemble the territory, he'd listen to the people who say "Dude. That's a Wal-Mart flyer. It's NOT A MAP."

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that evangelization as usually understood is more about bringing people into a formal community than about changing them; people join a religion when what they see mirrors what they already believe deeply enough. That fear works on so many people is a reflection of the fact that many people are deeply fearful; that guilt works on people is a reflection of the fact that many people have hidden feelings of guilt. Love works for people who are already deeply loving; it seems to me that love has the much better effect that even if its receivers don't convert, it still does good for them, and for the giver. The professed religion is just a reflection of the underlying faith, and seems to me to matter much less than the religious institutions declare.

[cleodhna.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure a great many of the self-styling 'Christians' out there would be horrified if they stepped back from what they were force-fed and considered what is actually written in the bits of the Bible that deal with the teachings of Jesus, not just the cherry-picked verses and interpretations handed down to them. No, make that absolutely sure. I can't believe that people in general are so base and creatively useless that they can't take an instant of reflection and do something with it.

In my own experience, evangelists are largely predatory. There's a very good reason why they are taught to leave certain people alone-- whether because we're so deeply affected by Satan, or are just beyond the word of God at this point in their lives. The 'good news' doesn't work on people who are more or less happy with their lives and outlook. Talk to an evangelist and they'll try, by instinct, by design, or by faith that this is the real, honest, true way to bring you around to a truth that will redeem you, to lever into the cracks in yourself, those things that cause you pain. Grief, guilt, physical pain, loneliness, doubt, fear: all cracks, all universal and hard to bear, especially when you're on your own. Social inclusion is a powerful (and biological) directive. And if you look at us, it's hard to avoid seeing that we seem to be congenitally predisposed to swallow any pill that we believe will make it all better. If we're not in a position to want to swallow that pill, well, it's best to leave us where we are, until circumstances are right (we're suffering so much that we can't stand it anymore) for the evangelists to come in and administer the snake oil.