L.B.: Hospitality vs. Sales

Left Behind, wrapping up Chapter 11

As an evangelist, the Rev. Bruce Barnes gets a few things right.

Evangelism is what Chapter 11 of Left Behind is all about. This is an awkward topic. In American culture, evangelism has become something dreaded and despised -- perhaps most of all by the very evangelical Christians who are constantly being told that if they were good Christians, they would be doing more of it.

How did this become the case? How did something that was supposed to be about "good news" become, instead, an awkward, embarrassing and odious duty?

This happened, I think, when what ought to be an act of hospitality was transformed into an act of salesmanship. Salesmanship, whatever else it may be, is ultimately inhospitable.

We could go back and look at the causes of this perverse commodification of the gospel -- tracing the way that 19th-century evangelists like Charles Finney began adopting the techniques of salesmen, and how these techniques were further refined over the years by students of marketing like Bill Bright. But we needn't go into great detail here about how this happened to acknowledge that it has happened.

"Evangelism" today is not seen as the practice of hospitality, but as a kind of marketing scheme. It is not an invitation, but a sales pitch. Not a matter of "taste and see," but of "buy now." Or, to use one of my favorite descriptions of the work of evangelism, it is not "one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread," but rather one fat man trying to convince another fat man that he's a beggar in order to close the sale on another loaf.

Contemporary American-style evangelism is made even stranger by the fact that it seems devoid of content. It's become a turtles-all-the-way-down exercise with no apparent real bottom. Evangelism means, literally, the telling of good news. Surely there must be more to this good news than simply that the hearers of it become obliged to turn around and tell it to others. And those others, in turn, are obliged to tell still others the good news of their obligation to spread this news.

That may be an effective marketing strategy, but what is the product? There doesn't seem to be a product -- only a self-perpetuating marketing scheme. It's like Amway without the soap.

Bruce Barnes -- and LaHaye and Jenkins -- is certainly right that evangelism is an imperative, a duty, for Christians. Jesus' final words to his disciples included his "Great Commission" -- "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel ..."

But in the soapless-Amway model of American-style evangelism, it seems like the Great Commission is the gospel. This makes no sense -- it is an ouroboros, a Moebius strip, a spiritualized version of the child's prank of writing on both sides of a dollar bill, "How do you keep an idiot busy all day? (See other side for answer)."

The product, Barnes and L&J would say -- the only product -- is "salvation" from, as Barnes puts it, "sin and hell and judgment." Thus the prominence of fire and brimstone in many an evangelistic sales pitch. It's interesting that this emphasis on fire and brimstone cannot be found in that Great Commission Jesus gave to his disciples: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

This business about "making disciples" seems a bit more complicated than what we usually think of as proselytization. It certainly sounds like it calls for more than a sales-pitch. (And what was that about "everything I have commanded you"? This from the "love your neighbor/love your enemy/turn the other cheek/don't worry about food/care for the least of these" guy? Barnes, like most American evangelists, somehow leaves all that out of his sales pitch.)

To get a sense of what I mean by evangelism as the practice of hospitality, visit your local church. Don't go upstairs, to the sanctuary, go downstairs to that room in the basement with the linoleum tile and the coffee urn. That's where the AA and NA meetings are held.

At its best, Alcoholics Anonymous embodies evangelism as hospitality. They offer an invitation, not a sales pitch. They offer testimony -- personal stories -- instead of a marketing scheme. They are, in fact and in practice, a bunch of beggars offering other beggars the good news of where they found bread.

At its worst, AA sometimes slips into the evangelism-as-sales model. You may have found yourself at some point having a beer when some newly sober 12-step disciple begins lecturing you that this is evidence that you have a problem. He will try to sell you the idea that you are a beggar so he can sell you some bread. The ensuing conversation is tense, awkward and pointless -- the precise qualities of the similar conversation you may have had with an evangelical Christian coworker who was reluctantly but dutifully inflicting on you a sales pitch for evangelical Christianity.

Back to Bruce Barnes. He does, as I said, get a few things right. When Rayford calls asking questions, Bruce invites him over. Come on by, come on in, door's always open. That's hospitality. And Barnes spends the better part of the chapter telling his own story -- his "testimony." Autobiography is neither an argument nor a sales pitch. It can be, instead, another kind of hospitality.

But then poor Bruce can't help himself. The sales pitch, he thinks, is all that really matters here, and he soon gets down to the hard sell, trying to move his productless product.

Barnes explicitly uses the language of sales, twice referring to the promise of salvation as a "transaction." And he lays the sales pressure on thick -- even threatening Chloe with the hypothetical bus.

Ultimately, this chapter is just one long infomercial. It ends the same way every infomercial does -- with the prospective buyers receiving a free video tape explaining how salvation through Christ and/or a Craftmatic adjustable bed will solve all their problems. Act now. Supplies are limited. Sales personnel are waiting to take your call.

Comments

[Lila]

(Fred, the hypothetical bus appears to be a dead link.)

Oddly, the pyramid scheme appears to be one of those things like the Fibonacci Sequence that pops up everywhere. I would not be surprised to find out that this Amway approach to evangelism is as American as ID/Creationism. I suppose every culture leaves its mark on the religions that it touches....

[Mabus]

Fred accidentally stuck a " on the end of his link. Remove it, and the link works.

[McJulie]

Thank you for pinpointing exactly what has always bothered me about the evangelism I was raised with. The fact that it's a sales pitch, and nothing is less holy than sales. And the fact that it has become a message without meaning -- there's no there there. "Accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" -- what does that even mean, anyway?

The sick, sad, desperate thing is that many big modern churches glory in marketing. They use the language of sales and business with pride. They're doing it on purpose because marketing -- marketing works if all you want is for people to buy your product.

But it has no more meaning, and no more capacity to save the human soul, than Amway.

[Mabus]

Is sales really all that unholy? What makes it that way?

So far as I can tell, properly carried out, sales is neither holy nor unholy. In a way, I suppose that it could be considered an image of justice--equal give for equal take. Of course, it's not hard to cheat someone, but that's far from essential to sales.

[12xu]

It seems to me that one big problem for evangelists nowadays is that it's hard to find a beggar who has not heard the story of the big pile of bread in the sky. I don't believe that evangelists preach to inform the ignorant so much as to make those who have already committed feel better about their decision.

[Bugmaster]

Well, I'm a godless atheist myself (hssss !), but I can definitely see the reasoning behind the sales-pitch mentality. According to the Christians, a). everyone who is not a Christian will endure an eternity of torture, and b). Christians should love their neighbours, which would stronly imply that they'd need to prevent this torture. The only way to free non-Christians from suffering an eternity of torture is to convert them to Christianity.

If the above is true, then the Christian is practically compelled to use any means necessary to gather converts -- which involves actively changing people's minds -- because nothing can be worse than an eternity of torture. Sales techniques are a fairly effective means of mind-control, thus the Christians use them. If someone invented a mind-control ray that could rewrite anyone's beliefs from orbit, Christians would have no alternative but to set it to scatter-fire mode and push the button -- otherwise, they'd be condemning countless individuals to an eternity in Hell, which is unthinkable.

I think some Christians might argue whether conversions obtained through sales pitches, mind-control, and other trickery are genuine, but... who cares ? The end result is the same: the target subject now believes in Christ and is safe from the endless lakes of fire and brimstone. The end justifies the means.

[Peatey]

I've been to a few of the multi-level marketing seminars and have always been struck by how much like churches they were. I always assumed it was savvy piggybacking by the marketers to use the formula that works, but never connected the dots the other way, that maybe churches are the ones copying the sales-pitch.

Thanks for another thought-provoking post, Fred.

[Irrational Entity]

Actually, if I remember my early 20th century history correctly, preachers-turned-marketers were a significant part of the new radio marketing system. The basic comparisons are easy enough. First convince people they have a need (sin->bad breath) then offer a solution (Jesus->winter mint). They also aided in shaping the tone of messages and striking the right cords.

[Cryptic Ned]

It's true that the ten or fifteen most awkward situations I've ever been in were all with people who, apropos of nothing, entered a spiel about how their religion was vaguely desirable for some reason. These are generally people who were brought up into the religion, not people who converted to it, because the converts can show some sort of actual example of why they think the religion is a good idea. It generally involves a negative correlation between church attendance and homelessness or drug use.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" -- what does that even mean, anyway?

I think it means "Please say the following sentence: 'I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior'." Once somebody insisted that I say that before she could hang out with me anymore.

[Cryptic Ned]

If someone invented a mind-control ray that could rewrite anyone's beliefs from orbit, Christians would have no alternative but to set it to scatter-fire mode and push the button -- otherwise, they'd be condemning countless individuals to an eternity in Hell, which is unthinkable.

This is why Mormons devote hundreds of millions of dollars to genealogy, so they can perform various soul-saving rituals on the souls of long-deceased people.

[robert p]

Comfortable postmodern Christians have no problem "believing". But actually living the Gospel challenges/transforms you to the core of your being.

I wouldn't necessarily call hellfire preaching a sales pitch; to me guys like Joel Osteen personify sales+marketing "feel good" faith. It's more honest to give people the bad news about sin, righteousness, judgement before sharing the good news of redemption, mercy and grace. Seems to work for Ray Comfort too

[robert p]

(In theory,) the difference between Evangelism and Marketing is:
* L O V E *

[Kim]

I think some Christians might argue whether conversions obtained through sales pitches, mind-control, and other trickery are genuine, but... who cares ? The end result is the same: the target subject now believes in Christ and is safe from the endless lakes of fire and brimstone. The end justifies the means.

Is safe now because God is stupid enough to be fooled by coerced conversions and/or the repetition of a magical phrase?
I prefer a smarter God.

[Roberta]

Fred, you are SO GOOD!! You are eminently worth waiting for. I was so disappointed over the weekend not to get my fix of Slacktivist on LB. I'm going to send copies of this off to my favorite people because they will all think this is great too.

And, of course, the salvation salesmen have it so bass-ackward: salvation is a gift from God, not a notch on a salesman's belt. A beggar telling another beggar where she found bread. Whose metaphor is that?

[byron]

Fred, I really enjoyed the post. I'm glad you brought up Alcoholics Anonymous. I've been sober and in AA for almost 8 months now, so I'm still pretty new to it, but the parallel between evangelism is certainly there. The "beggar telling another begger where she found bread" is a superb analogy for AA, as well.

To illustrate further, here's a few of our "Twelve Traditions" (basically, they are guidelines for running AA meetings) with my commentary:

"Three - The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking"

So, if you're alcoholic but you're still having fun drinking (or you think you still are), come back when you're ready to stop. Nobody is going to force you to be at an AA meeting, and if you are coerced into being there you probably aren't going to get sober.

"Five - Each group has but one primary purpose -- to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers"

We only carry the message to the suffering alcoholic who has the desire to stop drinking (officially, at any rate. Some people get carried away, as Fred pointed out), and the most we can do for them is to share what it was like for us when we were still drinking, what happened to bring us into AA and get us sober, and what our lives are like now. Again, the alcoholic has to decide for him/herself that they are an alcoholic and want to quit.

"Eleven - Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films"

Ah, this is the really good one. We realize that 'selling' AA to someone isn't going to work ("OK, I'm an alcoholic. Now piss off and let me drink"), and we're not trying to force anybody to get sober. As I said above, all we can do is share our experience, strength, and hope. I know from experience that frothy emotional appeals, concerned friends and family, sales pitches, appeals to logic, etc, have no power to dissuade the alcoholic. Even my father, who is an alcoholic, and who certainly has a vested interest in my getting sober, did not try to make me get sober but was simply available when I was ready. For that I am grateful. I can't stand being preached to, and would probably still be drinking if AA worked the way American-style evangelism does.

And, to respond to Bugmaster's post, who reasoned that if Christians should love their neighbors, and if non-Christians will be subjected to an eternity of pain and torture (though I don't think that beleif holds true for all Christians), then Christians must feel compelled to convert everyone by any means necessary: I think you've got it wrong. I don't think loving your neighbors means you must try to coerce them to do what you think is right. You cannot "save" somebody who does not think they require "salvation". You can't get an alcoholic sober if she/he doesn't think she/he's an alcoholic.

You can love them by simply allowing them to be themselves in the fullest sense. You can want them to not suffer. You can share your experience with them and leave your door open to them if they decide they are in pain and want what you have to offer them.

Sorry about the long post :)

-Byron

[Fred]

Link fixed. Thanks Lila and Mabus. Good catch.

[Bugmaster]

I think you've got it wrong. I don't think loving your neighbors means you must try to coerce them to do what you think is right. You cannot "save" somebody who does not think they require "salvation".

I'd like to think that, but I'm not sure that's true -- and this is what really creeps me out about organized religion in general.

Let's say that I'm a devout Christian, and my neighbour is an atheist who, according to my branch of Christianity, will burn in hell forever because of his atheism. I love my neighbour. Is it not my duty to convert my neightbour, by any means necessary, starting with a sales pitch, and up to and including brainwashing and mind control ? Sure, he doesn't know that he requires salvation -- but I know that he does. If I manage to "sell" Chrtistianity to my neighbour, and convince him that he requires salvation, then it's all well and good -- he will convert, be saved, and go the Heaven. If I can't sell Christianity to him outright, but I do manage to somehow brainwash my neighbour into converting, wouldn't he still go the Heaven ? Isn't the process of brainwashing, which is merely finitely painful, infinitely preferrable to an eternity in Hell ?

Note that, in both cases, the end result is the same: my neighbour will come to sincerely believe in Christianity -- because he buys into my sales pitch, or because I broke his will, doesn't matter.

Some might argue that tricking people and/or brainwashing them is a sin, which will stain my immortal soul. That may be true; however, as a devout Christian, I should be ready to sacrifice myself in order to rescue my neighbour from an infinitely horrible fate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that most evangelical Christians actually think along these lines (mostly because most people don't think deeply about their beliefs, regardless of what they are). However, I do find this picture I've painted fairly reasonable, assuming of course that Christianity is true, and that atheists burn in Hell -- which, AFAIK, is what many (if not most) Christians actually believe.

[Bugmaster]

Oh yeah, and inicidentally, I'd like to jump on the "I <3 Fred" bandwagon. Fred, if you ever publish your "Left Behind" analysis series as a book, I'll definitely buy it. Hint, hint :-)

[Peatey]

Bugmaster, regarding your 'fairly reasonable' picture that most Christians 'don't think deeply about':

Does the end justify the means? Should a loving parent trick/brainwash the wayward son/daughter away from substance abuse? (see byron's comment above). Should a democratic country spread democracy abroad by limiting civil liberties within?

[mel-anon]

I spent 3+ years in a Big Evangelical College Ministry (shouldn't be hard to guess which one) and can say that Bugameister's got it exactly right wrt how some evangelical leaders used the guilt-trip method of trying to turn us into encyclopedia salesmen for Jesus. I sat through many an impassioned testimony about how nonbelievers (always referred to as "the lost") were doomed to live an unfilfilled existence unless YOU got off your ass and showed your love for a random stranger by telling them how obviously screwed-up they were. This is, I kid you not, unironically referred to by staff of said organization as "door-to-door evangelism." It is almost a sport. One small group I was in encouraged us to turn in "scorecards" of sorts every week of how much evangelizing we did.

Being a pretty severe introvert, talking to random strangers isn't my idea of a good time in the first place; telling them how much their life must suck wasn't really on my agenda. Needless to say, once they figured out I wasn't moving many units I got stashed away in the proverbial corporate basement where I couldn't do any harm.

They managed to do one almost-genuine act of service every year; helping the freshmen kids move into their dorms. Even that was largely a promotional gag, but at least it did something for people and they remembered it. I thought it was the most succesful thing we did. But everything else was the equivalent of a free hat giveaway to suck you in to a one-on-one meeting with your a friendly sales associate.

Looking back, I don't see how anyone bought it, and truly I don't think they got a lot of real "converts." They got a lot of kids who had churchy backgrounds and were feeling nostalgic/homesick/whatever, typical college insecurities. I posted this long post because this thread pretty much nails the whole process I went through of realizing what a sham the whole deal was.

[inge]

The "fun" thing about the logic Bugmaster describes and mel-anon affirms is that it justifies (and has historically justified) everything from scam artistery and betrayal to torture and murder. It also makes it very hard to trust Christians with anything more important than the milk money, which is a sad state of affairs.

[Dave Klecha]

Wow, love the site, Fred. Great work.

Per the Amway aspect of the discussion, I don't think you'd believe (or, maybe you would) how tightly they are tied to the evangelical/dominionist/PMDs in their home area. Grand Rapids, MI being a hotbed of such things and the home to Zondervan and the Family Christian Bookstores. So I found the Amway comparison quite apt, in a variety of ways.

[Scott]

Per the Amway aspect of the discussion, I don't think you'd believe (or, maybe you would) how tightly they are tied to the evangelical/dominionist/PMDs in their home area. Grand Rapids, MI being a hotbed of such things and the home to Zondervan and the Family Christian Bookstores. So I found the Amway comparison quite apt, in a variety of ways.

Amway's GOPyramid Scheme
...Headquartered in Ada, Michigan, Amway (website) was founded in 1959 by two high school buddies from Grand Rapids, Richard DeVos and the late Jay Van Andel. DeVos and Van Andel came up with the Amway idea -- described by Mother Jones' Zina Klapper in a 1981 article as a "door-to-door dime store of everything from car cleaners to cosmetics" -- after "engage[ing] in a series of business ventures together, including an unsuccessful attempt to market bomb shelters."

Billionaire Richard DeVos, who appears regularly on the Forbes magazine list of richest Americans also owns the National Basketball Association's Orlando Magic and has been a member of the highly secretive Council for National Policy. He once served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. He also created a conservative philanthropy for he and his wife called the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.

For more than 35 years, the DeVos family has been a major benefactor of both the religious right and the Republican Party. In the final weeks before the 1994 election, the Amway Corporation gave the GOP $2.5 million, which at the time was "the largest political donation in recent American history," the Washington Post reported. And in 1996, the company donated $1.3 million to the San Diego Convention and Visitor's Bureau "to help fund a Republican cable TV show to be aired during the party's national convention," the Associated Press reported. The program featured "rising GOP stars as 'reporters,'" and aired on the Family Channel which was owned by Pat Robertson.

According to Media Transparency, a website tracking "the money behind conservative media," grant-making by The Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, which was founded in 1970, grew from $4 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 2001. "The family provides major funding to Concerned Women for America, Free Congress Foundation, Michigan Right to Life, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and a number of other groups," according to a People For the American Way report. In addition, foundations with the DeVos family name attached to it branched out to include the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation (1990), the Daniel and Pamela DeVos Foundation (1992), and the Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation (1992).

Evelyn Pringle reported on the company's close relationship to President George W. Bush...

[dave]

"Some might argue that tricking people and/or brainwashing them is a sin, which will stain my immortal soul. That may be true; however, as a devout Christian, I should be ready to sacrifice myself in order to rescue my neighbour from an infinitely horrible fate." - Bugmaster

Why stop there? By this logic an even better strategy for a "good" christian would be to brainwash their fellow man and then, as soon as he says the magic words, the christian should shoot him in the head. That way the newly converted is guaranteed to get into heaven. What does it matter that they get there a little early when there's a chance the brainwashing might slip and he end up in an eternity of fire and brimstone?

The ends justify the means. Seems perfectly reasonable from a certain point of view. That point of view being a psychotic deviant without moral conscience or understanding of what it means to emulate Christ.

There are moral and spiritual lines that should not be crossed, and the vast majority of Christians understand that crossing them renders their beliefs a sham and calls their humanity into question.

"Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that most evangelical Christians actually think along these lines (mostly because most people don't think deeply about their beliefs, regardless of what they are)."

So if Christians did think deeply about their beliefs, they'd feel compelled to become psychopaths?

Contrary to the suggestion, I think it's the unexamined life that leads to such sloppy moral thinking. (And frankly, one doesn't have to think very deeply to grok the fact that brainwashing is evil.)

-d

[Garnet]

Why stop there? By this logic an even better strategy for a "good" christian would be to brainwash their fellow man and then, as soon as he says the magic words, the christian should shoot him in the head.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill".

[cjmr's husband]

"Unless you're saved, and you think you'll be forgiven for it."

[Axiomatic]

Gamet, it's actually more like "thou shall not murder."

[Axiomatic]

Gamet, it's actually more like "thou shall not murder."

[Axiomatic]

Gamet, it's actually more like "thou shall not murder."

[dave]

Why stop there? By this logic an even better strategy for a "good" christian would be to brainwash their fellow man and then, as soon as he says the magic words, the christian should shoot him in the head.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Why should that stop someone who, in Bugmaster's logic, "should be ready to sacrifice myself in order to rescue my neighbour from an infinitely horrible fate."

What's a stain on your soul compared to all the souls you save? You can always ask forgiveness right? It's win/win.

It's that logic I was addressing. Not whether brainwashing is specifically proscribed in the Ten Commandments. Even if it was, it wouldn't make any difference. The person commiting the brainwashing has already ignored the rest of the book and centuries of moral philosophy surrounding it. What's ten more verses?

[aunursa]

Why stop there? By this logic an even better strategy for a "good" christian would be to brainwash their fellow man and then, as soon as he says the magic words, the christian should shoot him in the head.

From an Evangelical perspective, beyond the prohibition against murder ... there would be no way to know if the conversion was sincere.

But it's interesting that this way of thinking is the precise reason claimed by John Emil List, who one day in 1971 murdered his wife, his mother, and his three teenage children. List expressed concern that his children in particular might lose their salvation, and believed that his actions ensured that they would go to heaven.

[Axiomatic]

Damn. That was one horrible string of repeat posts. I offer my apologies.

[J]

"In American culture, evangelism has become something dreaded and despised ... How did this become the case? How did something that was supposed to be about "good news" become, instead, an awkward, embarrassing and odious duty?
This happened, I think, when what ought to be an act of hospitality was transformed into an act of salesmanship."

Maybe. Certainly the alloying of evangelism with salesmanship made evangelism worse that it was before.

But the arrogance and conformity-enforcing aspect of evangelism remains, no matter how lovingly, respectfully, literarily, or broadmindedly it is done. The black pearl remains at the heart: "You aren't living the right way. The things you believe, insofar as they differ from what I believe, are wrong and stupid. You need to become more like me."

...and then combine that with the post-modern world, in which law and custom will no longer grant wide support to those who want to forcibly change others' religion and in which people have the opportunity to learn about other religions than the one they were born into and THEN maybe you'll understand why it is that people do not like evangelists or evangelism.

Even to say, "It's the salesmanship aspect we need to get rid of" is a kind of salesmanship: An assumption that it couldn't possibly be anything wrong with our basic product--it must just be our ad campaign that is "off".

[Scott]

Why stop there? By this logic an even better strategy for a "good" christian would be to brainwash their fellow man and then, as soon as he says the magic words, the christian should shoot him in the head.

If you believe in Eternal Security (the magic words cover you forever whether you want them to or not), there is no benefit to shooting him - he can't unconvert.

And yes, they're allowed to lie. It's called "True Truth" (as opposed to "false truth", which is mere consistency with facts). If the goal is to lead you to "the Truth", then anything they say is by definition honest.

This business about "making disciples" seems a bit more complicated than what we usually think of as proselytization. It certainly sounds like it calls for more than a sales-pitch.

It calls for mind control:

Twisted Scriptures: A Path To Freedom From Abusive Churches
Leaders of many religious groups (even including several mainstream churches) are twisting the Scriptures to subtly coerce cooperation from their members. In the process, personalities are changed and lives ruined. Mary Alice Chrnalogar is a deprogrammer with an international reputation. Chrnalogar reveals how classic mind control techniques are used to systematically seduce followers into total obedience. Twisted Scriptures: A Path To Freedom From Abusive Churches shows readers how to tell when churches are suppressing freedom of speech, intimidating followers, and distorting the Bible. Twisted Scriptures is invaluable as a self-help guide and as a tool for families and friends to free loved ones from destructive groups.

[cosmicdancer]

The end justifies the means.

That sentence is the exact opposite of what Christianity is supposed to be all about.

[chutney]

Sales is not spreading good news. Therefore, they're not doing what Jesus asked.

"Accepting Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior" requires swallowing a bunch of coordinated memes: God, Jesus, Incarnation, Christ, Sin, Damnation, Salvation, etc. Meme swallowing doesn't sound like good news either. Therefore, they're not doing what Jesus asked.

Welcome and hospitality are good news, however, and so AA is doing what Jesus asks.

[chutney]

Sales is not spreading good news. Therefore, they're not doing what Jesus asked.

"Accepting Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior" requires swallowing a bunch of coordinated memes: God, Jesus, Incarnation, Christ, Sin, Damnation, Salvation, etc. Meme swallowing doesn't sound like good news either. Therefore, they're not doing what Jesus asked.

Welcome and hospitality are good news, however, and so AA is doing what Jesus asks.

Grand Rapids, MI being a hotbed of such things

Actually, that's the national headquarters of the Reformed Church in America, an offshoot of the Dutch Reformed. And the RC was one of the first denominations to take a stand on Left Behind. They're against it. "Is not in accord with the Reformed understanding of Scripture." That's written and published, somewhere.

Although it's a very religious region, the Bible college, the Bible university (the more modern institution, though they wouldn't call it liberal except in a course offering), and the Bible seminary are all proudly Reformed. And while a tourist can't always get the pulse of the land in a day, I did ask a few people who hailed from that region what they, personally, thought of L.B.

They'd never heard of it.

Weren't interested either.

Keeping in mind 1 Kings 19, there's a risk in writing off a region just because of a reputation. Reputations aren't always true.

[The Old Maid]

Heh, that last one was mine.

[Jeff]

It's kind of disturbing that after reading this post, I thought "Wow, that was profound. Hmm, I'm hungry. I really could go for some bread."

Now where can I find some physical bread at this hour...

[Garnet]

I hear there's a guy offering it for a very reasonable price out in the desert, Jeff...

[Fred]

A bunch of you have reminded me again of my favorite scene from "Freeway," after Reese Witherspoon turns the tables on serial killer Keifer Sutherland and cocks the gun behind his ear -- "This is a crucial question, Bob. Do you believe in the lord Jesus Christ and take him for your personal savior?"

[chris Borthwick]

If you want to tell another beggar where to find bread, use the right signs:
http://www.slackaction.com/signroll.htm

[robert p]

Remember evangelism is also pretty direct spiritual warfare, so it's bound to be subjected to fairly intense criticism and opposition from the strongholds of this world.

I've shared the Gospel with people and felt the Holy Spirit adding conviction to my words. I've been present at conversions where the presence of God was so strong I wondered how many angels must have been hanging around.

Evangelism is more than Sinners Anonymous (but thats a good description of the Church); it's rescuing souls.
"He who wins souls is wise".
"The harvest is ripe, but the labourers are few"

If our Western societies reject the Gospel it's their problem, there are other fields to harvest (Africa, Asia..)

[Scott]

If our Western societies reject the Gospel it's their problem, there are other fields to harvest (Africa, Asia..)

The Dark Side of Global Evangelicalism
This diary is not an in depth study but the result of a little googling which produced some food for thought. Counterpoints and further information are welcome.

I have read several worrying articles recently about bad social effects related to the spread of evangelical Christianity in developing nations, but this is one of the saddest....

[Dave Klecha]

Old Maid:

I happen to live there, so it's not exactly a tourism thing. And while the CRC is important, they are by far not the only game in town. In fact, GR is also home to one of the bigger MegaChurches (Mars Hill), and a wide assortment of "Bible Churches," nondenoms, etc.

Asking a mainline CRC-er is like asking a Catholic (ooh, like me), but the broader culture is a little more variegated. GR is also the home of Calvin College, at which some students and faculty organized a pretty serious protest to GWB speaking at their commencement last spring. But they're not anywhere near the majority.

[Bugmaster]

The person commiting the brainwashing has already ignored the rest of the book and centuries of moral philosophy surrounding it. What's ten more verses?

Firstly, don't get me wrong, I am not actually advocating brainwashing and the hard sales pitch for Christianity (it would be odd, since I don't even believe in it).

Secondly, I don't think you appreciate what Hell is, according to modern mainstream Christian belief. Hell is eternal punishment; as such, it is infinitely painful. Since it is your soul, and not your body, that is punished in the burning lakes of fire (I'm not sure how that works, but whatever), you cannot die to escape the pain. You cannot adapt to it. It's unbearable pain that goes on for ever.

Some people on this thread are saying, essentially, "well, if you truly loved your neighbour, you could never brainwash them or pressure-market them". But does that maxim still hold true when the alternative is to condemn your neighbour to an infinitely painful punishment ? How can any merely finite pain compare to that ?

I have a feeling that most people here don't really believe in an infinite, fiery Hell. That's fine. I was merely pointing out that there's a large segment of the population that does believe in it, and that it is their very faith, and their good intentions, that are causing them to act in ways that the rest of us find morally (and theologically) questionable. You can always say, "well, my faith is true and they are just confused", but remember... that's what they say about you.

[Mabus]

J> I've been told a thousand times that evangelism is arrogant. I just don't see it. If it were a matter of picking some random personality trait and telling people that they have to conform to that, that would be arrogant. But it's not--it's truth--as best I can figure it out, anyway. Is it arrogance when you tell some deluded ID'er that no, his beliefs aren't science? Of course not. I don't want anyone to conform to me. I just want them to conform to someone else who I also am trying to conform to.

Chutney> I guess we disagree about what the "good news" is. As I see it, it's not the "good" part that's the defining characteristic, but the "news". People may cease to see the message as good, but if it was true, if in fact it really is the correct news, then it remains what we're supposed to be telling. If people don't want to hear it, well, that's their problem.

Bugmaster> Regarding coercion....as I see it, coerced belief--even the mind-controlled sort--is almost by definition not sincere. If I could reach into your mind and change you, all I'd be doing would be making part of you into me. The belief still wouldn't be yours, but mine. All coercion (any kind) does is remove the opportunity to believe sincerely.

And hey, look at what a few centuries of coerced "faith" did to real faith in Europe.

[dave]

Firstly, don't get me wrong, I am not actually advocating brainwashing and the hard sales pitch for Christianity (it would be odd, since I don't even believe in it).

I didn't think you were. But from the way you phrased yourself, it seemed to me you were saying brainwashing is something Christians should (or at least could) reasonably be doing if they actually understood their faith. Apologies if that was not the case.

Secondly, I don't think you appreciate what Hell is, according to modern mainstream Christian belief.

I come from a conservative charismatic background. Believe me I appreciate what they think Hell is. ;)

But does that maxim still hold true when the alternative is to condemn your neighbour to an infinitely painful punishment ?

Yes. It does.

(Btw, from an evangelical Christian point of view, you're not condemning them. Their own sin is condemning them. That's a very important distinction.)

I hope I don't sound combative here, because you seem like a reasonable and intelligent person and I hate being combative, but I do need to stress a point.

From your first post you seemed to look at this topic in a very selective manner, picking out two rules. 1) People go to hell if they're not saved. 2) You can be forgiven any sin. And then you make a logical assumption that it's reasonable by the tenants of their own faith for Christians to save folk by any means necessary, including brainwashing. (I added the murder bit, but it fits the scenario just as well. Torture is also a good example.) However, this logic ignores everything else about what it means to be a Christian. All the other tenants about how a Christian should govern their own lives and behave towards others are excluded from your calculus.

Sure there are some kooks who justify their actions with such logic. But it's not reasonable. It's ignorant and sick.

I have a feeling that most people here don't really believe in an infinite, fiery Hell. That's fine. I was merely pointing out that there's a large segment of the population that does believe in it . . .

And what I'm pointing out is even the vast majority of those who do believe in a fiery, eternal Hell are still not actually willing to brainwash someone into the faith. Convince, cajole, even, regrettably, condemn ("convict," they might say), but not brainwash. And it's not because they haven't read their bibles closely enough.

You can always say, "well, my faith is true and they are just confused", but remember... that's what they say about you.

You'll forgive me if I have little regard for people who advocate brainwashing.

Besides, I've been a heretic for years. After awhile, it's like water off a duck's back. :)

[dave]

And by "tenants" I actually mean "tenets".

And to think I read over it twice and still didn't catch it before hitting post.