L.B.: Tactical decency

Left Behind, pg. 218

It's strange even typing this sentence, but here is something on which I agree -- at least somewhat -- with Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Rayford Steele has prayed the Sinner's Prayer and skimmed the Gospels, and he wakes the next morning with an overwhelming urge to pester his daughter, Chloe, about his newfound faith. He wants to talk to her, or at her, until she breaks down and converts. He wants to strap her into a chair and force her to watch the In-Case-of-Rapture tape until she cries uncle and prays the Sinner's Prayer, too.

But he doesn't do that. And for the first time in the book, Rayford comes across as somewhat sympathetic:

Rayford kept himself from bugging her. He determined not to tell her what he had done unless she asked. ... Rayford fought the urge to warn her not to wait too long. He also wanted to plead with her to watch the tape, but she knew he had watched it and she asked him nothing about it. He had rewound it and left it in the VCR, hoping and praying she would watch it while he was gone.

Rayford's decision to refrain from "bugging" Chloe is mainly tactical -- he (correctly) recognizes that such pestering would be counterproductive -- but whatever his reasoning, he at least acts as though he respects her freedom and her choices.

This is surprising and refreshing, although explaining why may be difficult for those of you who haven't ever belonged to the evangelical/fundamentalist American subculture.

Evangelicals, as the term itself suggests, take the duty of evangelism very seriously. The duty/obligation/command to proselytize is piled high and the weight can be overwhelming -- a burden they can hardly carry. Just look at some of the choruses children sing:

Be a missionary every day
Tell the world that Jesus is the way
The Lord is soon returning
There is no time to lose, so
Be a missionary
God's own emissary
Be a missionary today

Nothing wrong with that per se. But in practice, the emphasis tends to fall on the "every day" and the "no time to lose," and the pressure is quite intense to tell your friends/classmates/coworkers/fellow passengers/waiter/barista that Jesus is the way" every day, day after day, whether or not they want to hear it and whether or not you have any sort of relationship with these people, let alone the sort of trusting friendly intimacy that would allow such a conversation to be at all meaningful.

The failure to thus pester these people is often characterized with a misappropriated quotation from St. Paul: "You ate at Denny's without asking the waitress if she knows Jesus as her own private savior? You must be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!"

That phrase is often used to argue that Christians ought to feel really, really guilty if they are not at all times and in all places making themselves into off-putting, conversation-stealing, monomaniacal, conversion-machines.

It is also used as an all-purpose dismissal of people like me. I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality. I believe that Christians are called to be salt and light -- not to be the kinds of people that no one wants to sit next to on an airplane.

L&J, to their credit, disagree. Rayford Steele -- their mouthpiece and LaHaye's Mary Sue avatar -- seems to recognize that the Great Commission and the obligation to spread the gospel do not require us to offend and scare off those around us. They seem to arrive at this conclusion for wholly pragmatic, tactical reasons, rather than principled ones (i.e., not because treating others with respect is the Right Thing To Do, but because treating them with disrespect doesn't seem to work), but let that slide. Whatever their reasoning, they have recognized that the willingness to be "fools for Christ" does not entail an obligation to be assholes for Christ.

I doubt L&J would go so far as to agree with me about evangelism being a form of hospitality, but here at least they seem to agree that evangelism ought not to be blatantly inhospitable. Elsewhere in these books, they often take the opposite stance, and the preponderant emphasis of the series does seem to come down more on the assholes-for-Christ side of the argument, but here, briefly, on page 218, L&J and I seem to agree on something.

(I tried to find a less vulgar alternative to "assholes for Christ," but the term was unavoidably apt. I realize that this term will be off-putting for some readers -- particularly for those to whom the desperate plea above is directed -- and that's unfortunate. But again, the term seemed inescapable, and it does seem strange that the naming of the phenomenon should be considered more offensive than the thing itself.)

Comments

[3fingerspointback]

I think "assholes for Christ" is imprecise, because to call someone an asshole usually encompasses a wide range of unpleasant behaviors not caught by your description. These people are not smoking in the theater or cutting you off in traffic because they say Jesus commanded it. Also, most of these behaviors attributable to assholes are the result of said assholes hazy recognition of other people as thinking, feeling human beings, and I don't think that's an accurate way to describe the in-your-face school of Evangelism. Instead, you need a term that only describes an "off-putting, conversation-stealing, monomaniacal, conversion-machine" and stops at that.

Unfortunately, the only alternative I can think of right now is "cockblockers for Christ", and that term is *over*precise.

[Jesurgislac]

Is it bad that I would quite like to be sitting next to one of these evangelists on a plane? (Well, okay, assuming I didn't just want to go to sleep.) I wouldn't start anything, if they didn't, but it is huge entertainment value shooting 'em down.

[Stephen]

I'm stunned that Rayford is not depicted as perhaps feeling cautious but pestering his daughter anyway.

Most Evangelicals seem to believe in the magic of the message. That is, as long as the message is presented - no matter how inappropriate the setting or bastardized the medium - then the work of the believer is done. Now it's up to the Holy Spirit to work his magic and make a convert.

Even though LaHaye and Jenkins give Rayford this caution as a tactical move, I'm still surprised by it. Tactics rarely play a part for people like this.

[LL]

RE alternatives to Assholes for Christ: sure, some people will be offended, and perhaps they should be. But they should also, as you suggest, show some of that Christlike humility they supposedly possess and ask themselves why people would see unsolicited proselytizing as assholish. If I were to try to convert everyone I met to atheism, people would rightly consider me an inconsiderate asshole and avoid me whenever possible. Why religious people think they should be exempt from the general guideline that most people do not like sneak-attack lectures is beyond me. I'm not familiar with the bible, but is there actually something in there that commands you to pester the shit out of everyone you encounter, whether they're receptive or not? I somehow doubt it. As for alternate names, how about: Jerkwads for Jesus?

[Toby]

OK, I haven't the talent for this, but someone must design an "Asshole for Christ" Tshirt and set it up on cafepress or whatever.

[Duane]

Just get a Pat Robertson T-shirt. Should convey the same message.

[Grumpy]

Where "fool for Christ" is a compliment, "asshole for Christ" can't be considered that offensive. It's not like you're saying "Christ is an asshole," even as an example, as I just did.

By the way, saying "The Holy Spirit is an asshole" is an unforgivable blasphemy, so there's no hope for me now. (Mark 3:29/Matthew 12:31-32/Luke 12:10). I'll keep a spot warm for ya in Hell, folks.

[Stephen]

By the way, saying "The Holy Spirit is an asshole" is an unforgivable blasphemy, so there's no hope for me now. (Mark 3:29/Matthew 12:31-32/Luke 12:10). I'll keep a spot warm for ya in Hell, folks.

I don't think saying that is the "unforgivable sin."

If you were to say "the Holy Spirit told me to murder an abortion doctor in order to save lives" and then acted on it, that might qualify.

Or claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit into starting a war that can only be "legitimized" by false evidence, deception and bullying.

Or even, perhaps, claiming that the Holy Spirit has commanded us to be assholes.

[Keith]

Since I constantly plagiarize Fred for sermon ideas, I'm going to have to morph "Assholes for Christ" into "Jerks for Christ." And then I can tie it in with Frank Zappa's "Jesus Thinks You're a Jerk." Maybe the choir can sing it.

[spencer]

Also, most of these behaviors attributable to assholes are the result of said assholes hazy recognition of other people as thinking, feeling human beings, and I don't think that's an accurate way to describe the in-your-face school of Evangelism.

Oh, I could not disagree more. That is exactly how I'd describe those people who try to nag me into accepting Jesus as my personal whatever. If they'd stop after I said I wasn't interested, then okay, you'd have a point. But they don't stop. They keep after me until I'm on the verge of committing a little religious persecution , presumably because they don't think I understand the gravity of what I'm saying. I do, of course, and I have arrived at my decision through many hours of thought - but because I arrived at the opposite conclusion they did, they won't accept that.

Which makes them assholes, in my book.

[LL]

I second what spencer says. In-your-face "evangelism" is de facto assholishness. If you're trying to spread the word and refuse to take a polite "No, thanks" for an answer, you deserve whatever you get short of physical assault.

RE "Just get a Pat Robertson T-shirt. Should convey the same message." - Hee hee. Funny...

[Joseph]

Spencer and LL: True, true.
What's worse is that many of them (us) are taught this as an effective means of evangelism. The burning-building or blind-man-cliff scenario are used as metaphors: "If a friend were asleep in a burning building, you would not simply say 'hey, you're going to burn.' You would absolutely implore him to escape - you would not leave him until you made sure he got out of the building! You would almost force him to get out!" "If a blind man is walking towards the edge of a cliff, you would get in his way and make him stop, not just politely notify him!" So they are taught that it is their great compassion - the level to which they care for your soul - that drives them to pressure you as much as possible to get your heart right. If this is the drive in their mind as they witness to you, then they are not really considering how much of a pain they are being, how rude, arrogant, etc. Not that I agree with this method - I really think the metaphor is flawed - but it does explain their behavior.

What's annoying for me is that if one evangelizing is particularly rude or arrogant, and/or happens upon someone who really doesn't appreciate their up-front method, they undergo 'persecution' for Christ. Nevermind what persecution really is, or that they deserved what they got in this case - they crumpled up my flyer and told me to go to Hell, thus I am persecuted for the sake of the Gospel!

[cjmr's husband]

On my next flight, I've got three guaranteed ways to avoid an Asshole for Christ:

1. I'm flying on Sunday.
2. My seat is next to the engine
3. Noise-blocking headphones and a copy of the soundtrack of Monty Python's Life of Brian

[Reverend Ref]

The synoptic gospels have Jesus addressing this very thing. Matt. 10:14, Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5 all basically say, "If they don't want to hear your message, leave them be."

And Paul follows Jesus' admonition over in Acts 13:51 & 18:6.

Evangelism is an important thing and Christians have an obligation to do it. I agree with Fred that evangalism is a form of hospitality through invitation. We invite people into our family and community. It is an open-ended invitation without an expiration date. It is our job to invite people to the banquet. It is not our job to make them come.

Hmmm ... Seems to me there's a parable about that as well . . .

I fail to see where or how hard-core evangelical types find the basis for putting the onus of conversion on themselves. Not only does that move evangelism from invitation to coercion (knocking someone upside the head with a baseball bat and dragging them back to the baptismal font by their hair does not consitute a conversion experience), but it elevates the individual to the position of God. Which, in turn, demotes God to a position of irrelevance since it is the evangelistic individual who is doing the saving.

The best story I ever heard along these lines was from that of a retired bishop. During the "dog & pony show," he was asked, "Tell us about your personal relationship with Jesus."

He answered, "My relationship with Jesus is like my relationship with my wife. Personal."

I invite people to join us. If they take me up on it, great. If they refuse the invitation, it's not my concern. And to be honest, most of my evangelizing isn't done with words.

[Jody]

I agree with your idea that evangelism should be hospitable, and I'll share my own experience with hospitable evangelism in its most literal form. Before I became a Christian I detested Christians. Then I found myself across the country from my home and in need of a place to live for the summer. A Christian family welcomed me into their home, knowing I did not share their faith, but letting me know they would not compromise their beliefs in their house. They treated me with utmost respect, and their oldest daughter gave up her bedroom to share with her sister for the summer. Here was a family with 4 children already, a full time pastor and his wife, their plates and house full already with duties but they told me they thought that Jesus would open his home to me, so that's what they were going to do- not because they wanted to. They made it clear that they would rather not, but they believed God spoke to them in a way that showed them I should stay with them. After only a few weeks my heart was softened by their hospitality, unwavering love, and transparency. The parents were former drug-addicts who met in NA and recovered together after an overdose. They shared with me how messy their lives were before they repented of drug use and casual sex, and that God was still working in their lives to help them grow spiritually.
It was the first demonstration of Christianity I have ever seen in my life, and it woke me up to the meaning of Jesus' Truth.
If the family had turned me away I would not have thought of them as rude or inhospitable- just normal, selfish people like myself.
They didn't force me to convert before allowing me to cohabitate with their children or sleep under their roof. They consciously lived the heart of God day to day, with out pressuring me. They had all summer to build a relationship of trust and integrity, so they never twisted my arm or rushed me into a decision.
I learned a lot about faith from them and I am grateful that God led me to their door. I hope I can treat others with as much respect and fairness, whether or not they are Christians.

[WatchfulBabbler]

Fred, agreeing with L&J? I think you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome!

[JR]

Fred, and others who have posted here, I just wanted you to know, as a person with deep, heartfelt, universalist beliefs tending towards agnosticism, and as a committed progressive, I have long believed that my relationship with evangelicals would always be one of antagonism, almost by definition. I have had many, many uncomfortable, awkward, rude conversion attempts, so I accepted the rude idiots as the status quo for Christianity in America.

But you have shown me over the months I have been coming here that not only is it possible to be Christian and progressive, but it is possible to be an evangelical without being an "asshole for Christ." And that it is possible for "decent people for Christ" to be as fed up with these jerks as I am.

As a younger man, I took these "asshole for Christ" attempts as aggression. If they were trying to impose their beliefs on me, I would try to impose my beliefs on them. Which never worked out well for either of us, and dare I say never led to any conversions. Now, I am much more likely to just end the conversation with the "assholes for Christ" as bluntly and clearly as possible, without returning the rudeness back at them. Still no succesful conversions, but at least nobody has to get all worked up about it.

In fact, on further exploration I found that a real-life friend of mine considers himself an evangelical Christian. But of the non-asshole variety. He never even tried to convert me until we had deeper discussions about faith, life and such. It was an appropriate, non-intrusive and non-abrasive discussion, rather than an in-your-face "asshole for Christ" attempt. That is a conversion attempt I can respect and appreciate. But not that many years ago, if I found out my friend was "secretly" an evangelical, I would have distanced myself from him.

[Lucia]

Right there with ya, Toby: my very first thought through my giggles was "there needs to be a t-shirt." The Pat Robertson one would work.

Seriously, though, I have met AFC (at least once while waiting tables), but not that many -- I do live in New England, after all. Fundagelicals aren't as thick on the ground here as in other places, and people are more reserved in general. I can also think of at least three friends of mine who waited -- in one case many years -- for an appropriate moment to witness to me.

I wonder if AFC aren't somewhat like screaming children on airplanes. If there are 20 children on a plane, one of whom is screaming, you will think "why do I always get the plane with all the screaming kids on it?" Likewise, there may be 20 evangelicals minding their manners to the one who accosts you while you're serving them coffee.

[Noah Brand]

Atheist bastard chiming in again here; no one's ever successfully converted me, but I have to say the polite, respectful folks who suggest in a relevant conversation that I might come by their church sometime get "That's nice of you to offer, but I think I'll probably pass." The Assholes for Jesus get "Yeah, I've heard this sales pitch before, and I'm not interested in the product. Hope I'm not ruining your commission."

[bellatrys]

Luisia, yes, the [relative!] lack of snoopiness about people's personal lives in New England is a funny thing. To some visitors, it comes off as cold and uncaring; to others, as a refreshing respectfulness. It's not that people aren't curious; they just tend to be more discreet. And as far as religion goes, there are an awful lot of churchgoing agnostics, cultural Christians who just don't worry about the theology, and regard those who do as rather freakish zealots. "They're pagans!" "--So? Are they sacrificing animals? No? Then why should I be upset?" "They're gay!" "--Are they? Oh."

But then, I think the thing really is that New England *tried* theocracy, before, rather notoriously, and decided it really wasn't wanted, at all.

[Lucia]

Wiiiiiiiitch!

[Doctor Science]

I am not the first to point out that there's an intimate chicken-and-egg association between American marketing and American evangelism (e.g. Amway). The AFJ approach is basically that of the "hard sell", while the invitational approach is the "soft sell".

If you surf around marketing sites, you'll see that they all say "sometimes you need a soft sell, sometimes hard" -- so why are evangelicals taught to do the hard sell every time? Among other things, it ends up giving evangelical Christianity the flavor of a bad car salesman or even a Ponzi scheme -- don't they recognize this? Why aren't they more patient?

I guess I'm asking what it is in this kind of Evangelicalism that rewards the 100%-hard sell, instead of a mixed or soft-sell strategy. Is it something about the way the congregations interact with the ministry? The way the ministry is paid? Or what?

I notice that marketing sites tell salespeople the soft sell is especially important if you rely on repeat customers. Evangelicals talk about conversion and salvation as a once-and-for-all experience, so maybe they think a soft sell is a waste of time. I also see that e.g. this advice for realtors says "Don't be afraid to hard sell when you know that doing the deal is the right thing for the customer". Since the evangelicals/salespeople have faith that "the deal" is in fact the right thing for *all* customers, they may feel that a soft sell is inappropriate or somehow displays a lack of confidence in Jesus.

[Duane]

In fact, on further exploration I found that a real-life friend of mine considers himself an evangelical Christian. But of the non-asshole variety. He never even tried to convert me until we had deeper discussions about faith, life and such. It was an appropriate, non-intrusive and non-abrasive discussion, rather than an in-your-face "asshole for Christ" attempt. That is a conversion attempt I can respect and appreciate

JR, now that you've come this far, try to get your mind around a Christian philosophy that says you are already "saved": Christ made the sacrifice, paid the price, extended the mercy, etc. with no strings attached.

You don't need to join the right denomination, chant magic words (ie. the sinner's prayer), close your eyes and twist up your brow in sincere belief or get baptized.

Just follow Him.

[Jeffery Weskamp]

I read Left Behind some years ago, and I believe that on the following page, Rayford thinks something like this: "He realized that he might offend Chloe by discussing his new faith, but by not telling her, he may be not-offending her straight into Hell."

So, Rayford is indeed motivated by the burning-building and blind-man-cliff scenarios mentioned by Joseph. Offending her would be infinitely better than standing by and letting her go to Hell. So, go right out and be a "Dillweed for Christ!" (That's my personal version of AFC)

So, if I am indeed remembering this correctly, Rayford's "tactical decency" will only last one page, and on the next one he'll be back in full AFC mode.

The scariest thing is that this belief (Hell is infinitely worse than anything in this life, therefore leading people away from Hell by any means is justified) has led to everything from brainwashing to torture to genocide. During the Inquisition, torture was accepted because, after all, torture in this life was only temporary; torment in Hell is eternal. So, if torture was necessary to force a heathen to repent, it was morally good because it saved him/her from everlasting pain in Hell.

[Iwannaliveinabluestate]

Or to the Ralph Reeds of this world, effectively in favor of forced prostitution and abortion in the Marianas if it means women are exposed to Christianity: http://democrats.com/node/9066

[Rowan]

Hi! Off-topic, but here is my favorite bit of writing about the Rapture. From Terry Pratchett's Good Omens, when a televangelist is hijacked by a passing disembodied angel:

He became more serious.
"Brothers and sisters, I've got a message for you all, an urgent message from our Lord, for you all,
man and woman and little babes, friends, let me tell you about the Apocalypse. It's all there in your
bible, in the Revelation our Lord gave Saint John on Patmos, and in the Book of Daniel. The Lord
always gives it to you straight, friends-your future. So what's goin' to happen?
"War. Plague. Famine. Death. Rivers urv blurd. Great earthquakes. Nukyeler missiles. Horrible
times are cumin', brothers and sisters. And there's only one way to avoid 'em.
"Before the Destruction comes-before the four horsemen of the apocalypse ride out-before the
nukerler missiles rain down on the unbelievers-there will come The Rapture.
"What's the Rapture? I hear you cry.
"When the Rapture comes, brothers and sisters, all the True Believers will be swept up in the air-it
don't mind what you're doin', you could be in the bath, you could be at work, you could be drivin' your
car, or just sittin' at home readin' your Bible. Suddenly you'll be up there in the air, in perfect and
incorruptible bodies. And you'll be up in the air, lookin' down at the world as the years of destruction
arrive. Only the faithful will be saved, only those of you who have been born again will avoid the pain
and the death and the horror and the burnin'. Then will come the great war between Heaven and Hell,
and Heaven will destroy the forces of Hell, and God shall wipe away the tears of the sufferin', and there
shall be no more death, or sorrow, or cryin', or pain, and he shall rayon in glory for ever and ever-"
He stopped, suddenly.
"Well, nice try," he said, in a completely different voice, "only it won't be like that at all. Not really.
"I mean, you're right about the fire and war, all that. But that Rapture stuff well, if you could see
them all in Heaven-serried ranks of them as far as the mind can follow and beyond, league after league
of us, flaming swords, all that, well, what I'm trying to say is who has time to go round picking people
out and popping them up in the air to sneer at the people dying of radiation sickness on the parched and
burning earth below them? If that's your idea of a morally acceptable time, I might add.
"And as for that stuff about Heaven inevitably winning . . . Well, to be honest, if it were that cut and
dried, there wouldn't be a Celestial War in the first place, would there? It's propaganda. Pure and
simple. We've got no more than a fifty percent chance of coming out on top. You might just as well send
money to a Satanist hotline to cover your bets, although to be frank when the fire falls and the seas of
blood rise you lot are all going to be civilian casualties either way. Between our war and your war, they're going to kill everyone and let God sort it out-right?
"Anyway, sorry to stand here wittering, I've just a quick questionwhere am I?"
Marvin O. Bagman was gradually going purple.
"It's the devil! Lord protect me! The devil is speakin' through me!" he erupted, and interrupted
himself, "Oh no, quite the opposite in fact. I'm an angel. Ah. This has to be America, doesn't it? So
sorry, can't stay . . . "
There was a pause. Marvin tried to open his mouth, but nothing happened. Whatever was in his
head looked around. He looked at the studio crew, those who weren't phoning the police, or sobbing in
corners. He looked at the gray-faced cameramen.
"Gosh, " he said, "am I on television?"

[WereBear]

I don't have a problem with "Assholes for Christ" simply because it pinpoints the source of the behavior. I can understand how others might want to use other words.

What bothers me is when I am accosted, it never seems to be out of true caring about me; it's really about them. As they struggle to convince me of the urgency, it seems like they are convincing themselves, through me, and they do it over and over again with other people.

I'm very secure in my chosen spiritual path, and when asked, I discuss it. If I were insecure... yes, I'd probably be more forceful.

And that's the core of what really bothers me about aggressive proselytizing. Who are they trying to convince?

[Cieran]

Great thoughts here! Thanks for fun Sunday morning reading!

One comment about the "assholes for Christ" schtick...

I went through what seemed like the entire dictionary looking for the proper epithet when I read the LA Times story last spring about the Georgia Tech speech code lawsuit. And we've had the honor of seeing Fred Phelps, the ultimate asshole-for-christ, a few times in these parts. He really does define the term.

And after considerable review, that turned out to be the only word that really did justice to these unchristian behaviors:

http://cieran.blogspot.com/2006/04/right-to-be-asshole.html

To paraphrase Chuang Tzu: "if the word fits, wear it"...

[JR]

JR, now that you've come this far, try to get your mind around a Christian philosophy that says you are already "saved": Christ made the sacrifice, paid the price, extended the mercy, etc. with no strings attached.

Hi Duane, I appreciate the effort, really, and the advice. But the advice relies on certain assumptions, that I don't accept.

[Dave Lartigue]

Back in college, we had the tradition guy standing outside the student union shrieking about Jesus at everyone who passed by, calling all the women whores and all the men...well, actually the men didn't automatically get called anything except sinners and damned, which everyone got called. I guess women getting called whores was a little lagniappe.

(Of course, I had the typical idiot friend who would stand there and argue with the guy as though there were ANYTHING that could be accomplished by that. The only thing more annoying than the person trying to convert everyone is the "witty" atheist trying to reverse the process.)

What struck me then and now is the bizarre assumptions being made by individuals on that level. Namely:

1) That people simply aren't familiar with Christianity. We've seen this in LB and I've seen it many of times in other evangelical contexts. This weird belief that, despite living in a society where Christianity is accepted as the "norm" and Christian bliefes and stories are everywhere (including in places where they're being "subverted" or "recontextualized" or whatever), that somehow people just simply haven't HEARD the pitch, and if they do so, they'll buy immediately. I suppose it comes from the inability to imagine that anyone who HAS heard the pitch would reject it.

I don't know why I'm surprised by this, though, when I think about it. There are damned few in America who haven't heard about Coke, Pepsi, or Nike and yet they don't seem to think they need to stop advertising.

2) That the person they are seeking to convert ISN'T already converted. Seems to me the best way to stop a would-be converter who asks "Have you accepted Jesus as your Savior" is to say, "yes." How do you sell someone something they already have? Of course, the problem here is:

3) That the target isn't saved ENOUGH. Have you REALLY accepted Jesus? Then why, ma'am, are you wearing pants, which is an abomination? And why, sir, are you heading in the union to check your mail instead of trying to win souls? How can you, my neighbor, possibly be washed in the blood of the lamb if you don't go to MY church and use MY blood of the lamb instead of that inferior Brand X you're currently using?

Naturally, the answer to all of this is what was pointed out above. Conversion is, mostly, not for the convertee, it's for the converter. There's a reason the language is like, "winning souls," emphasis on "winning". It's as if Jesus was Herbalife.

[LJ]

Cieran - Fred Phelps is an entirely different category of asshole. He isn't trying to convert others to his brand of Christianity, I think he's trying to convince himself he doesn't want to perform sexual acts on a man. Such a trite motivation to attribute to him, I know, but having watched him in action for over 15 years that simple explanation is the only one that makes sense. A very odd clan, the Phelpses.

[Axiomatic]

Hey, Christians! Collect a hundred ConversiO's Breakfast Cereal boxes and win a free Book of Life sticker book!

[Andrew Wade]

The scariest thing is that this belief (Hell is infinitely worse than anything in this life, therefore leading people away from Hell by any means is justified) has led to everything from brainwashing to torture to genocide.

Thats the scariest, true, but the creapiest is when people start arguing that everyone deserves to burn in hell. It makes God sound like an abusive parent and them the abused children who haven't come to terms with it. Frankly, even if I believed in such a being I would want want nothing to do with it. I've heard a number of Christians say as much too.

I've run across very few "assholes for Christ" in "real life" and not all that many online either (they tend to stick out). Some of that may be a tactical soft sell, but I strongly suspect that few Christians around my parts hold with the perverse theology I outlined above.

[Andrew Wade]

Cieran - Fred Phelps is an entirely different category of asshole.

Oh, most definitely. No good intentions there -- as much as that can be determined from a distance. He is very clearly a deeply disturbed individual. Given his obsession with gays he may very well be a closet-case, but IMO there must be something else going on. I am at a loss as to exactly what though. In any event, I would not generalize from the very peculiar case of Fred Phelps.

[Doctor Science]

LJ wrote:

Fred Phelps is an entirely different category of asshole. . . A very odd clan, the Phelpses.

and Andrew wrote:
It makes God sound like an abusive parent and them the abused children who haven't come to terms with it.

I find the best explanation of Fred Phelps is in this picture, which has a Freudian simplicity. That's young Fred and his sister in the shadow of their father. To my eye it would go quite appropriately as the cover of one of Jonathan Kellerman's mysteries, which are all about abused children and toxic families.

I'm not saying that AFCs are all from abusive families, but there is a mutually-reinforcing quality to a certain family style and an image of God The Abuser.

[Lucia]

JR, now that you've come this far, try to get your mind around a Christian philosophy that says you are already "saved": Christ made the sacrifice, paid the price, extended the mercy, etc. with no strings attached.

But there is a string attached: I have to believe a bunch of stuff I can't force myself to believe.

[Andrew Wade]

Doctor Science, I too speculate along the same lines, but I don't have anything to back up my speculations, so ...
With regards to Fred Phelps I feel I'm on firmer ground, and I don't feel I owe him any courtesy. It doesn't take an expert to see that there is something very wrong with that man.

[Mnemosyne]

Given his obsession with gays he may very well be a closet-case, but IMO there must be something else going on. I am at a loss as to exactly what though. In any event, I would not generalize from the very peculiar case of Fred Phelps.

I have seen other people post who claim that Phelps' primary motivation is money: they are a family of lawyers who provoke people into violence against them so they can sue them and gain settlement money.

Gotta admit, it does make some sense.

[Erick Oppeen]

Oh, what a wonderful, eloquent post!

I've often wondered _why_ people who want to convert others don't back off when they're met with indifference or hostility---I'd think that good manners alone would mandate more of a "soft sell" approach.

Although I am a maltheist (leaning toward Asatru, if I've gotta believe in gods as anything other than "They are bigger than me, therefore they are hostile until proven otherwise, and even then I'll be keeping a wary eye on them") I have known some fine, wonderful people who exemplified the best in Christianity. If I thought that being a Christian would make me more like them, I'd convert.

I wonder how Assholes for Jesus would react to being told that they were fine advertisements---for Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheists? "How much is Murray paying you? You don't expect _me_ to believe all that hoo-ha about her being dead, now do you? Come ON!"

*snicker*

[jr]

The aggressive evangelism of the religious right makes a lot of Christians I know embarrassed to admit they're believers

[CatMoran]

In my opinion, a person doesn't qualify as an asshole unless their intent is to provoke people for their own benefit.

So while I have certainly seen and heard of many Assholes for Christ in the media, I personally have only encountered Pests for Christ.

[wintermute]

I remember coming across the following line in Phelp's Wikipedia entry and wondering exactly how much of his pathology it explained:

By Phelps's own admission, he never dated, and had no interest in members of the opposite sex.

[aunursa]

That people simply aren't familiar with Christianity. We've seen this in LB and I've seen it many of times in other evangelical contexts.

I suppose it comes from the inability to imagine that anyone who HAS heard the pitch would reject it.

You hit the nail on the head. The excuses L&J give the characters in LB for rejecting the message are so off-the-wall that it indicates that they (L&J) have no idea of the reasons why we non-Christians reject their message.

[Jesurgislac]

So while I have certainly seen and heard of many Assholes for Christ in the media, I personally have only encountered Pests for Christ.

Hee! "Pests for Christ" is a wonderful name for that kind of irritating buzzybodies: I'll remember that for future reference.

[PK]

“I believe that no one should hear the gospel twice, until everyone has heard it once.” -John Stott

Sound advice. All Christian evangelists should be dust shakers.

[eyelessgame]

I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality.

It's people like you (and like my wife) who make me wish I could... y'know, believe. Or, more precisely, make me wish that Christianity was something that didn't fly in the face of things I know to be true and didn't claim things I know to be demonstrably false.

One of the best widespread attempts at evangelism I've seen is a guy who sometimes hangs around the Davis Square T station. Hands out Quaker granola bars, which come with little cards saying, basically, that this is a free gift to remind you that God loves you, no strings attached, and if you feel like you want to go to church, well, here's ours. No pushing, no threats, no sin-and-hell messages.

And, if I decide to go to church, I'm seriously going to check that one out.

--funwithrage

[Duane]

Free granola bars? Hell yeah! Sign me up for some of God's nutritious and tasty Goodness.

[LL]

Free granola to go along with free will... they are NOT Jerkwads for Jesus... I salute them.

[Fernmonkey]

Handing out free food?

Well, I think that's definitely What Jesus Would Do.