Proselytizing

[JenellYB]

Pleased to meet you Jenell . I guess i be one of those you described. At least in my past but not now except possibly perhaps i am still in my madness and dysfunction..

 

 

Joseph

 

 

I've perceived nothing about you that suggest madness, dysfunction, (at least, no more so than any of us humans have to at least some limited extent!) or drive to proselytizing. I've qualfied my statement in that....it is of the obsession to press upon others to accept irrational, dysfunctional beliefs. Not those we are content to hold ourself, but not press others to believe, or those for which we can mount a reasonable sound argument to support our belief in.

Unless you have an entirely different life, hidden from our view here, I'd say you are neither dysfunctional or gone into madness.

That you may have gone toward that direction sometime in the past, i cannot know...but obviously you were not gone off into it quite entirely, or you'd not have come back from it, be here now. If there had not been at least some cracks in your belief at such a time, you would never have explored your way out of it.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

It seems to me unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, one should assume sincerity.

 

George

 

Would observation of hypocrisy, discord, inconsisitency, between the professed beleif and what is openly manifested in their behaviors, or expressed in other beliefs that is contradicotry, inconsistent, or how they do or do not live out those beleifs in their liives, qualify as such compelling evidence?

 

Jenell

[BillM]

Much of this makes me wonder, is proselytizing our human way of trying to feel secure in our beliefs by adding numbers to those who are in agreement with us? Do we think that having others agree with us, especially in large numbers, makes us right?

[JenellYB]

Much of this makes me wonder, is proselytizing our human way of trying to feel secure in our beliefs by adding numbers to those who are in agreement with us? Do we think that having others agree with us, especially in large numbers, makes us right?

 

I believe that it is.

Jenell

[GeorgeW]

Much of this makes me wonder, is proselytizing our human way of trying to feel secure in our beliefs by adding numbers to those who are in agreement with us? Do we think that having others agree with us, especially in large numbers, makes us right?

 

As I recall, this is a proposition that Rodney Stark (a sociologist who specializes in religion) has made.

 

George

[BillM]

If so, Jenell, then I can appreciate the mystic who carves his/her own path, as long as they don’t present their path in the aforementioned threatening manner. It’s not comforting to think that we go along with things simply because we take it for granted that the majority is always right or that we are, to put rather crudely, too lazy to do the hard work ourselves of discerning the path of wisdom for our own lives.

 

In my former flavor of Christianity, I claimed to believe in a literal hell. The doctrine was part of evangelical orthodoxy. But the truth of the matter is that despite 30 years in this flavor of Christianity, I, in evangelical-speak, led only one other person to the Lord and that was my step-sister (when I was about 14). Therefore, was I a true believer or only pretending because that was the accepted stance of my religious community? When one is surrounded by a community that claims to hold to the same doctrines, there is definitely pressure there to go along, a giving over of one’s own reasoning to group-think, especially when the consequences of going against the group-think is said to be damnation.

 

The truth of the matter in my experience was that, except for in Bible College where it was mandatory, I’ve never gone door-to-door proselytizing. Sadly (in retrospect), most of my time was spent *within* that Christian culture in efforts to determine who are and who are not the “true Christians.” We weren’t really interested in converting the world, we were more interested in warning Christians in our group about other Christians who were not in our group and, therefore, probably not Christians at all. So if there was any real proselytizing done, it was more aimed at “preaching to the choir” to keep the purity laws of our Christian tradition.

[JenellYB]

Ws, as for especiall;y toward the last of your post, being raised in an envonment not really much active in outside proselytizing, but more to judging each other, yes. that's been MOST of my experiennces too, and I think the most common. Thoese really into the proselyzing things, as indivuals of as groups, really a something of a different matter. In my own family history, by the time I was 12 yrs old, my mother had pretty much completed her tranistion from any attnedance at local churches, community churches, after having bounced around them for some years always unhappy they were too wishy washy, too modern, too watered down.....to following a Calvinistic/Hardshell Baptist tradition radio preacher near New Orleans, named LR Shelton. She not only listened on radio, there were weekly boxes of his taped sermons and teachings that were arriving as she shipped the last batch back. By the time I was 13 or 14, these tapes, with that preacher's angry hate-filled condemning voice and words was rolling off her big reel to reel tape player near constantly, except when my Dad was home, ad wouldn't allow it. Also came boxes and boxes to tracts, pamplets, that she then distributed far and wide in businesses. public places, and handed to anyone that would let her shobe them into their hand, if she couldn't pin them down to tell them about it personally. No, that is not the usual kind of community church involvment you mostly expereinced. But there are indiduvals, even out of that envronment, that proselytize like that.

 

As for mystic and proselytizing, actually, at least as I understand mystic thought, it would be hard to imagine that even remotely compatable with the determination fo press ones own ideas and even strong beleifs, upon others, even when they've said no, in such a way as to suggest authoritiy, others should/must believe or be damd...that is so entirely anti-mystic to me. I think that the very nature of a mystic as one that HAS carved their own path is quite at odds with any thought to demand others accpet a path as told. Thought they may be very happy to share with you the wonders of their adventurers with those that care to hear, and evangelize in a way of trying to 'be', to present themselves, as witness, testimony, to something greater than themselves, that others might seek as well.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

As to how someone can believe, or at least think they believe, in such as a literal hell, and yet at once not hit them the real horror of that, of even their own loved one suffering such torment, or, know the bible stories that recount savage massacres of innocent men women and children, or Noah's Ark saving a few while everyone else perished outsdie, while at the same time beleiving themselves to be a humane, caring and compassionate persoin, and not be hit by the horror, the reality of the atrocity of it, I think we humans have these "barriers" we erect in our minds, between inconsistencies, incongruencies, places of which we might say, "my mind just can't go there."

 

I read once a biographical account by one that had been involved in political/socal policy matters in Nazi Germany. How he even participated in analyzing, reviewing, structuring programs to supposedly help the economic and social problems in Germany, that were much dependent upon "eliminating" certain segments of the population that were considered problematic, a source of drain on resources, etc, and yet claimed it didn't really hit him until later, the reality of what they were doing, talking about doing and setting into planned action....that it meant killing all those people. When asked, well, where did he think they were going to go when "eliminated" from Germany's society, and he said it was like a dark fog, a mist, in his mind, as he groped to recall what he might have thought...he said, I don't know, maybe assuming they would be deported out of Germany or something?

 

Its kind of like a kid focused on the math in the school book, questions like if Johnny has 4 apples and Sue has 3 apples, how many apples do they have together? Or if Betty and Jane work 4 hours each at cleaning Mr. Jones yard, at $20 pr hour, and plan to split the totaly earnings equally how much will each girl have? All you think about, all you even try to wrap your mind around, are those numbers, NOT those people being named. Of course, we assume in the school book these are not actually real people, just representations of people for purpose of the math exercise, but oddly, in the mind of such a one as above, involved in plannig the elimination of many people, those "people" on those papers and charts were but representations, not actually real people. This man had placed one of those mental barriers between what he was doing, the "representations of people" in the numbers he was working with, that prevented his mind "from going there," from making the cognitive leap from the "representations of people" to the actual real people they represented.

 

In my thought, those that can think they beleive in a literal hell and traditional salvation/damnation theology, the go sing happy songs about "everybody being together again on the other side", following the death and funeral of a loved one they believe to be "unsaved", can ONLY do so with some mighty high barriers between those beliefs.

 

Jenell

[NORM]

...Whether the chicken or the egg came first, the mental disorder or the religious fanaticism, there is no doubt in my mind, from those expereinces, that once underway, it becomes a continous process of one perpetuating and reproducing the other in an endless cycle....

Jenell

 

Jenell,

 

You should do a study on me!

 

First, the history:

 

I am half Jewish from my mother's side (grandfather - although, he professed atheism), but raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist community.

 

I have ALWAYS felt that our particular faith-group was a cult guilty of brainwashing its youth in perpetuating the illness. I recall many times as a youngster wondering what it would like to be "normal."

 

I raged furiously against this machine when I was about 12 or 13. I loved science, but the Church leaders tried everything in their power to dissuade me from following that path. My father, to his credit, would sneak me How and Why Wonder Books about dinosaurs (not mentioned in the Bible) and evolution (the religion of Satan). I don't think he realizes that his efforts to appease my curiosity were the beginning of the end of my Christian faith.

 

I was forced to attend church twice each Sunday, once each Wednesday, and accompany the adults and teens on "Visitation Thursdays." These visitations involved going to the doors of those foolish enough to complete those "Tell us about yourself" cards stuck in the pew slots. People would fill them out to keep from being bored to death. They unwittingly became targets of the Thursday visitation teams. (Consider this fair warning! DON'T fill them out!!). These visitations had a twofold purpose:

 

1. Keeping tabs on members who were slack in their attendance, or had unruly children

2. Recruiting fresh blood.

 

The indoctrination masquerading as Sunday School was very thorough. I learned to read the Bible before I entered the first grade, so I could not only spell circumscision; I could define it as well.

 

The SECOND I left home, I avoided religion like the plague. I would even cross over to the other side of the road when encountering a house of worship as a pedestrian.

 

But, 17 years of mind control is a difficult thing to overcome.

 

I re-entered the faith with a vengeance after a bad turn of events involving psychedelics, a sowing of the wild oats, to employ a euphamism, which included a whirl-wind tour of the globe, a brief, booze-besoaked shot-gun wedding, quickie divorce and a three month stay in the looney bin.

 

I became a street preacher.

 

Born Again (for the second time).

 

I not only prosyletized, I prosyletized in bars, on street corners, in houses of prostitution and in (liberal) churches. I had a quote frrom the Bible for anything anyone could throw at me.

 

What drove all of this?

 

I really can't pin it down, but after contemplating it for over 25 years, my best guess is a mixture of guilt (plllllennnntttttyyyy of that), a need to "belong" and the aforementioned brainwashing. The gospel way was totally embossed on my DNA - well; at least it seemed that way at the time.

 

It didn't take long for that skepticism that painted me the bad seed as a teenager came creeping back. I plunged myself into the Bible and Christian history to prove the things I thought were bunk as a child were real.

 

My quest only reinforced my youthful agnosticism.

 

Completly deflated, the church I was actively involved in crumbled right before my eyes when a group of ultra-conservative zealots systematically drove away anyone who disagreed with their myopic worldview.

 

I embraced the alter-ego of my religious identity and converted to Judaism. Here, I've found a place that welcomes my agnosticism. I can now finally understand how my grandfather could cling to his "faith" and call himself an atheist. Judasim isn't necessarily about believing in esoteric notions of who G-d is. It isn't the point. The point is in behaving toward one another as if there were a G-d who cared about humanity.

 

Which turns out to be a totally human idea.

 

So, I guess, Jenell, that in my analysis, the psychosis is caused by indoctrination, and is not necessarily indicative of mental disorder, even though it exhibits as such. And, more importantly - there is a cure!

 

NORM

[JenellYB]

Norm, every person's case is unique. Yes, indoctrination and conditioning, called religious or otherwise, can cause psychosis. Even if begun early enough, actually permamently affect developing structures of the brain.

But it can be many different combinations, Early child abuse and severe family dysfunction, religion, social condtions, and yes, no doubt, genetics. Then, there are things like brain injuries, many subtle brain injuries are manifested in mental and psychological disorders. In my own mother's case, I can't know all the reasons and causes, but I know severe child abuse, physical, emotional, and sexual...severe crushing poverty, her father's leg was crushed by a falling load of bricks, ending his careers as a brick mason and as a Shriner circus performer, the year she was born, rendering him an invalid the rest of his life, no SS or disablity income or any kind of public assistance for the poor and needy back then, then her mother, silbings and herself spotty education and loss of childhood, as they had to become family bread winners, going through the Great Depression, and then adult life traumas i wont go into, but so much, so much, and added to, I have reasons that support, some genetics, a family history of mental illness. Then, mix in the religion, that first began in her early 30's, as between my birth and my sister's 4 yrs later, she suffered through 3 miscarriages, at home, without medical assistance, again because of poverty. Just so much working together, interacting, lots of chicken and egg cycles all going on together.

 

For what I hear you saying here, suggested reading, I think could help a lot. John Bradshaw, I'm mainly thinking, Healing the Inner Child.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

I appreciate everyone sharing their personal experiences here, although some of it is uncomfortable reading (for its honesty). All of this makes me wonder if religion, God, etc. really is, as Bishop Spong and others suggest, simply human coping mechanisms for dealing with the angst of being, the anxiety of knowing that we exist but that we will, ultimately, die alone. If so, it is no wonder that religion's main function seems to be how we deal with death. This is, imo, the main focus of proselytizing, not to encourage people on how to live, but to address our fears of death and what happens afterward.

[JosephM]

Much of this makes me wonder, is proselytizing our human way of trying to feel secure in our beliefs by adding numbers to those who are in agreement with us? Do we think that having others agree with us, especially in large numbers, makes us right?

 

While the 'herd instinct' can also be strong in humans and there seems to me a secure feeling that comes with numbers in agreement, i think the proselytizing for some such as myself came from a sincere belief that was locked into the belief that the words in the Bible that said we should go into all the world and make disciples of all nations was a commandment from God. No harm was meant to others and it was to me looking back pure ignorance on my part.

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

All of this makes me wonder if religion, God, etc. really is, as Bishop Spong and others suggest, simply human coping mechanisms for dealing with the angst of being, the anxiety of knowing that we exist but that we will, ultimately, die alone. If so, it is no wonder that religion's main function seems to be how we deal with death. This is, imo, the main focus of proselytizing, not to encourage people on how to live, but to address our fears of death and what happens afterward.

 

I do not share the belief that the main focus of proselytizing is to address our fear of death rather than encouraging people how to live. I believe there are scores of traditional Christian churches that do teach moral living and values. While it it true they preach the afterlife, many i have personally attended and even the Baptist church my grandchildren attend do a great deal of community service and humanity works. While it is true they proselytize because they see that as part of their mission as a commandment from Jesus, i would not relate that strictly to a fear of death, One Baptist Church in particular also volunteers each year to work free for habitat for humanity for a couple weeks and one lady here where i spend the winter travels at her own expense to Africa and while there is proselytizing, they are focusing more not on preaching their gospel but rather doing humanitarian work to improve life there. I have great admiration for such people and churches regardless of their personal professed doctrinal beliefs. I believe we all have different experiences with proselytizing and perhaps there is no single focus in practice and multiple reasons may have validity in their respective cases.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Joseph,

 

The argument that I have read (and as I recall), is that sincere proselytizing is not a conscious effort to seek confirmation, but that one's beliefs are inherently unknowable and there is inevitably some degree of underlying uncertainty and insecurity. The more people that buy in, the less the subconscious doubt and insecurity.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

 

That may be an argument and reason the command was inserted but if one truly believes the Bible is the literal Word of God, then imo one is compelled to proselytize , not by uncertainty but by belief or sincere certainty. (howbeit in ignorance)

[BillM]

I do not share the belief that the main focus of proselytizing is to address our fear of death rather than encouraging people how to live. I believe there are scores of traditional Christian churches that do teach moral living and values. While it it true they preach the afterlife, many i have personally attended and even the Baptist church my grandchildren attend do a great deal of community service and humanity works.

 

This is where, Joseph, I have to go back and reference what I originally wrote about my own definition of proselytizing, that it is sharing information geared toward conversion accompanied with threat or coercion. This definition reflects the kind of proselytizing that I was trained and told to do (but seldom did).

 

I agree with you that there are scores of traditional Christian churches that teach moral living and values. But such teaching and training is done *within* their doors and, therefore, to me it is not proselytizing. Churches seldom go door-to-door or pass out tracts on moral living *unless* this information is geared to make one feel guilty and, therefore, open to conversion.

 

Similarly, yes, many churches do community service and humanity works for those outside their doors, and, with you, I applaud them. But, again, I don't feel this is proselytizing because these works, while maybe or maybe not encouraging church membership, are seldom ever accompanied by threat or coercion.

 

So, per *my* original definition, neither inter-group teaching or extra-group good works are proselytizing.

[JosephM]

Thanks for the clarification Bill,

 

I had not considered that you were using such a narrow definition of the word proselytizing that only included being "accompanied with threat or coercion". My mistake, as i see you did set up your own definition in response to George's OP.

 

My own proselytizing went on for multiple years but did not focus on fire and brimstone stuff but rather other benefits of what i believed a Christian life provided and i encouraged others to join based upon what i then perceived was my duty to God and commandments as i understood at the time.

 

Joseph

[murmsk]

Why are we here? Why do we struggle with thoughts of faith? Is it purely an academical exercise. To a certain extent this is one of the problems w/ the progressive movement ... we don't know why! And this is why the more conservatives are afraid ... because with out the fear of hell, with out the directive to proselytize why church?

 

This was something I thought about when I was deciding if "church" was worthwhile. I didn't come from a conservative background so I have no baggage of that type anyway. If it is purely an academic thing then its a waste of my time. I came to the conclusion there are benefits both personally and sociatally. I think I am a better person because of the church influence and therefore my effect on society is better.

 

Now I can't believe I am going to defend conservatives but here goes. I had an employee a number of years ago who was married to a guy who at one time drank to excess, cheated and generally treated her and everyone around him poorly. They started attending a very conservative church where he was taught he was going to rot in hell if he didn't do what the church told him. The last 25+ years he has been a good family man and friend. It is ONLY because of his fear of hell. Today I am certain he would go bad to his old ways w/o that fear. He proselytizes because he knows where he would be w/o it .. very much for the same reason I work to invite folks to our church.

 

I think church movements should be judged by their effect on people and society. When the effect is negative they should be condemned.

 

steve

[JenellYB]

In these last several posts, it seems to me there might be some confusing of proselytizing (as I understand what that is) with "sharing testimony", giving winess, human sharing of faith, experience, in dealing with life, that might begin to edge into evangelism (again as I understand it)

 

As I think of proselytizing, this person or group involved are operating out of a position of being in possession of a "truth", seen to them as "information" or "knowledge" of vital importance that only they (and their peers that also hold it) have. And that it is of such a matter that

1) they have special knowledge that all people in grave danger that only these selected people are even aware of through some special 'revelations' since it is something that could not be known through ordinary human knowledge and examination of material facts, and

2) only they have the remedy, the secret, to avoiding that grave danger, also that can only be known through such 'revelation', not examination of material evidence,

3) This places them in a very special position of holding the keys to liife or death (eternal, after-life, heaven or hell) the ONLY keys, and therefore under a special burden of responsiblity to "save the world."

4) At the same tiime, this "burden of responsiblity to 'save the world' carries for them a special benefit, for being heroes saving the world, and specially blessed by God and among men above others not so chosen to have the special knowledge.

 

Is that not, as might be defined in terms of psychopathology, "a savior delusion?"

 

I don't think of such human sharing experiences in what we may have to deal with in life, as having nuch, if anything to do with proselyzing. At least, "not really" which I say becasue there is a sort of "sharing" or "giving testimony" that relates pretty obviously to their lines of argument and attempts to persuade others to accept the beliefs they are promoting. That generally takes the form of "I was once lost in sin, living a wicked and sinful and miserable life at the mercy of addictions to alcohol and drugs and sex and greed, and on my way to hell, when....." and then offering the "remedy" they are promnoting, launch into how perfect and wonderful and happy they are, how good life is now. I know that one particularly well, for it was one of my mother's staple speils, and it was parrotted regularly by all those within the groupt with which she associated.

 

Is that not, as it might be described, the technique of the snake-oil peddler, whether in the old time sense of the traveling con man, or much of today's marketing technique to get us to buy products that are going to solve problems we didn't even realize we had until they told us we do? Gosh, we always just thought we had indigestion, to be resolved with an alka-selzer or some Maalox, with resolve to not eat so much greasy food the next time, until some drug company came along and invented "acid reflux disease" and told us we need a prescription medication. And by the way, that is exactly what happened, "acid reflux disease" is amonng a number of so-called "diseases" we are told we have today, that was purely the inventio of drug companies to create a market, not any medical researchers or doctors.

 

Now, to me, sharing personal tesitmony, giving witness, of what any of us may have to deal with in life, struggle with, we ARE talking about how we live our lives, how we make our way through our journeys, and in ways that our own experiences might be helful to others facing similar things. In such as somne of the personal sharings, as WS mentioned, that might for some be uncomfortable to read, or to hear, consider that it isn't the easy things in life most of us struggle with, but the hard things. Things like in my relationship with my mother, and what she had to herself struggle with in her life. Others struggle with those kind of difficult things, that are not yet far enough along in having dealt with them to comfortable laying them out before others. I still have much I haven't dealt with so well, that I cannot and do not so lay out, as well. But, of those things I do, that i can do so comfortably, is for that I have accomplished it in those matters. I've come to grips with, resolution of, and peace in them. And so can I share them, comfortably, as "witness" or "testimony" to others, that may now or someday struggle with something similar. Actually, if one reading does feel some discomfort in it, does feel some twinges of discomfort, suggests that something in it touches something they are have not yet fully dealt with and resolved within themselves. Believe me, it took a long time, and a lot of inner work, to come to as I can now, to only speak of some of those things about my mother, my relationship with her. That's hard for anybody, to come to grips with, deal with, matters of their relationships with their own parents.

 

But to me, such are the things in which our sharing with others, we might help each other along the way. Sometimes, we aren't even aware of how we are affecting others as we go through life, dealing with difficult things. I was quite surprised when, a few years ago, two women how in their early 40's, that were one of my own daughter's best friends from childhood, told me of what a powerful influence i had been on them through their observng how I went through difficult times in my life. That I had been a posutive influence on them, a role model, in things like patience (ME?), courage, grace, determination, acceptance of hard things in life, my resourcefulness in dealing with the curve balls life threw me and obstacles thrown in my path. And I know that sharing such as I've shared here of my mother, I have helped others strugglig with their own issues in things with their own parents, and I've counseled others in situations of caregiving loved oes, facing death of and with loved ones, as my own experiennces have taught me.

 

Through those things, I evangelize, for these are things that cannot be shared, told, without something of what helped me get through that, things of my faith, my thoughts about life, death, reality. I'm not telling them they have acid reflux disease (lost sinners on the way to hell) and telling them to buy Nexium, but talking about how I, too, like them, have sufferred terrible tension headaches, and this is what helped me resolve them. And it wasn't Robaxin and Ibuprofen!

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

WS wrote: I agree with you that there are scores of traditional Christian churches that teach moral living and values. But such teaching and training is done *within* their doors and, therefore, to me it is not proselytizing. Churches seldom go door-to-door or pass out tracts on moral living *unless* this information is geared to make one feel guilty and, therefore, open to conversion.

 

The making them feel guilty, and I will add, feel worthless and disgusting, part is definitely a part of proselyzing as I perceive it.

As I've heard it put, sock them in the eye, then offer them, as a kind favor, a raw steak as a poultice for it. After mentioning the name of that radio preacher my mother fell into following, i did a search and found that his stuff is available on line, and that his 'ministry' and church still continues on in his tradtions since his death. So if any care to explore just what kind of stuff i mean...

 

How, here's more about Calvinism and traditions influenced by it than you probably ever wanted to know.

 

The most offensive principle of classic Calvinism in my opinion, is the one at the very core of it, that of "the total depravity of Man." That humans are so totally depraved and rotten to the core, there is no redemption possible for them, there is nothing good in them, that would even recognize their own depravity or cause them to try to redeem themselves.

 

This forms the basis for the next step, which is that because of this total depravity, this absolute absence of anything good, there is also nothing in a person that would "choose" to seek a way out, "choose" salvation. Thus does Calvinism reject "free will to salvation". Humans are so depraved and rotten, none would ever choose it, becasue they'd never even recognize their totally depraved and rotten state so as to be motivated to do so.

 

Now, comes "Divine Election of the saints through grace," Grace is unmerited favor. God does not "save" anyone according to anything they've done or could do, including that "free will choice" to seek redemptionm whicg they are too rotten to do anyway. The Calvinist doctrine of "Election" posits that from before the foundations of Creation, God had pre-determed, "pre-ordained" as they say it, certain individuals to salvation, purely by and through God's mericful grace. Just so He'd have something left of this mess to show for his efforts, I guess you'd say. These "chosen" individuals ONLY will "be drawn to Me (God)" through accepting God's Son, who will sacrifice Himself, as the sin offering, to "pay the price of redemption" for those so "chosen", Jesus Christ. The sacrificial model for this is the OT ritual in which the sinful people lat their hand upon the sacrificial animal or are smeared with it's blood, which supposedly lays all their sins and guilt for them upon the poor animal.

 

But even those "chosen" aren't going to recognize their depravity and come to God without some "help." They must be shown, convinced, of their NEED for salvation, which means, made to see how utterly depraved and worthless they really are. Pow, the sock in the eye! And it is up to those "elect" that have already been shown their own depravity, and accepted the remedy, so know about all this, to go out and make sure other "elect" that don't know yet, are made aware. They must be shown, recognize, their own depravity and need for the remedy, and offered that remedy, that they too can be "harvested among the Elect."

 

Something to make clear here...proselytizing in this Calvinistic, or any similar tradition, in very different from the idea of evangelizing in the traditional sense, for it is NOT about "leading anyone to Christ," toward making a voluntary (free will) choice to salvation, becasue there is no such "choice" becasue people are to rotten to make it. The sole goal is to insure that those as yet "unharvested Elect" be made feel guilty and worthless enough to be primed for presentation of the remedy. And that can ONLY happen TO the Elect, those "pre-ordained" for salvation throgh God's grace in having chosen them for it. But since those already "harvested", or the "frozen chosen" as some call them, have no way of themselves know who is and who isn't among those elected for salvation, they have to present the message of the total depravity of Man, make sure everyone is given the chance at realizing how depraved and worthless and doomed they are, so as to reach those few chosen ones, and offer the remedy. And only those chosen are also going to recognize that for their rottenness, they are really in danger of eternal damnation to hell. In my opinon of it, as in my metaphor in post above, be open to the offer to sell them the Nexium.

 

Joseph wrote: My own proselytizing went on for multiple years but did not focus on fire and brimstone stuff but rather other benefits of what i believed a Christian life provided and i encouraged others to join based upon what i then perceived was my duty to God and commandments as i understood at the time.

 

 

Then i would not consider what you are talking about as "proselyzing." More as evangelism. Not giving them 'bad news', but 'good news'. Or at least with that intent, whether the ideas of the good news is always quite right or not. That it involved human ideas, it is subject to error, but the intention is good news, anyway. And as a caring-based thing, of course, if you feel something helped you, you'd want to share it with others to help them.

 

Steve wrote: Now I can't believe I am going to defend conservatives but here goes. I had an employee a number of years ago who was married to a guy who at one time drank to excess, cheated and generally treated her and everyone around him poorly. They started attending a very conservative church where he was taught he was going to rot in hell if he didn't do what the church told him. The last 25+ years he has been a good family man and friend. It is ONLY because of his fear of hell. Today I am certain he would go bad to his old ways w/o that fear. He proselytizes because he knows where he would be w/o it .. very much for the same reason I work to invite folks to our church.

 

And so, what happens when he can't get the Nexium anymore? Or he develops resstance to, and the Nexium stops working any more? To ever lose, or even come to doubt, the reality of hell, and his being in danger of going there, where will he be? The underlying problems, issues he has, that created the excesses of drinking, the mistreatment of others, hasn't been dealt with at all. They are still there. I'd suggest your. and others' outside perspective of how fully this man has changed may be an illusion those closer to him, his wife, for example, don't feel so sure of. Most abusive people that take up religion as "cure" for such problems end up simply patching religious justifications onto their continued expression of those same problems. And that actually makes them all the more damaging. It is often observed, people that have been disrespectful, cruel, and abusive toward others, in "getting religion", simply find things in religion, bible-based things, to tack onto them to tell those they abuse that its not just me that disrespects you, but God does too. The over bearing dominating husband now has God's word to back him up, in biblical based religious doctrine about woman's submission to her husbands 'discipline'. I'm not trying to be cynical here....I've been there. And yes...ouch!...on both sides of that.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

If I may, Steve, I would like a shot at answering your questions from my perspective because 1) they are good questions and 2) I ask them of myself. Please keep in mind that while my comments are phrased in dualism, I do realize that there are no clear, unmovable boundaries and many gradients in the “real world.”

 

Why are we here? Why do we struggle with thoughts of faith? Is it purely an academical exercise. To a certain extent this is one of the problems w/ the progressive movement ... we don't know why!

 

I don’t think it’s an academic exercise, or I hope it’s not. But because Christianity has, since the Council of Nicea, been primarily about beliefs, it is normal for folks to come here to TCPC and ask, “What do Progressive Christians believe about…” The assumption is that we have a different belief system (which many of us do), but we don’t push our beliefs, especially via the way I think of proselytizing.

 

Going back to the subject of proselytizing (per my definition and experience with it), the evangelical question is often put, “If you died today, do you know where you will go?” The question is framed in such a way as to appeal to an academic answer, “Yes, I will go to heaven.” Any hesitation on the part of those questioned is seen as a sure sign that those questioned are bound for hell. But my point is that, it is an academic question. It’s not primarily a question about how we live (pragmatic), but about where we will go.

 

To me, PC is at its best when it moves past the academic questions to questions of wisdom and meaning, pragmatic discussions. There is nothing wrong with academic questions, of course, but I suspect they leave our lives unchallenged and unchanged. I think we are at our best, not when we are asking, “What do we believe?” but, “How do we live?” We are not seeking academic answers on which we can all agree. Rather, we are sharing our ways of living, our ways of wisdom.

 

From this consideration, proselytizing, as I understand it, has a more of academic approach. “Do you believe the right things?” It is thought that it is having the right beliefs that secures one’s place or state in the after-life. Proselytizing isn’t that much concerned with everyday wisdom living. It is about the destination, not the journey.

 

And this is why the more conservatives are afraid ... because with out the fear of hell, with out the directive to proselytize why church?

 

A good question. The answer to it depends on what one thinks the Church’s function is. Is it to secure souls for heaven? Or is it to teach wisdom, to teach a Way of living? And in a very interesting twist, Jesus’ teachings on hell had everything to do with the “way” people were living and little to do with what their personal beliefs were. But the Church, especially since the Reformation, has down-played living the right way (it looks too much like “works”) for the sake of academic beliefs.

 

I think I am a better person because of the church influence and therefore my effect on society is better.

 

Bingo! The influence of the Church on you has been impetus to change, to affect how you live, your wisdom. Depending on one’s view, that may or may not affect where you spend eternity. But your life has moved or is moving past simple academic questions/answers to wise living, especially for the sake of others. Perhaps, for you, the threat of hell has been beneficial in this regard. But it doesn’t work for me. It is love that draws me forward, not threats of punishment. This doesn’t mean that I don’t reap what I sow, for indeed I do.

 

As I said at the start of this response, there are no hard lines. There are good and loving people who live lives of wisdom in what I would call “fear-based religion.” God works in mysterious ways. But when the Bible Church we were attending showed my 4-year-old son a picture of a man burning in hell and told my son to believe in Jesus or else, I didn’t find that kind of proselytizing acceptable. They were extremely sincere in what they believed, of that I have no doubt. But, for me, Jesus is more a teacher of wisdom (how to live our lives on earth) than a “ticket to heaven.” And, to me, his threats of hell are more tied to the destruction of Jerusalem than to the afterlife. But that is another subject.

[JenellYB]

Btw, will add....where that traditional Calvinist doctrine has been somewhat modified by an acceptance of "free will salvation," whereby anyone, not just a pre-ordained "Elect" might be converted, and thus "saved," it still most often retains a slightly modified "depravity doctrine", that still requires the potential convert be first driven to recognize their utter state of depravity and worthlessness, driven to guilt, and fear of the consequences, hell, to provide the motivation for their moving toward a free will choice to "accept" Jesus Christ's sacrifice for their sins, the substituionary nature of His crucifixion, to "redeem and save " them.

 

Jenell

[soma]

"To me, PC is at its best when it moves past the academic questions to questions of wisdom and meaning, pragmatic discussions. There is nothing wrong with academic questions, of course, but I suspect they leave our lives unchallenged and unchanged. I think we are at our best, not when we are asking, “What do we believe?” but, “How do we live?” We are not seeking academic answers on which we can all agree. Rather, we are sharing our ways of living, our ways of wisdom." Wayseeker

 

"Those that know do not say and those that say do not know." someone said this.

 

PC do not proselytize I feel because they know better. I feel Jesus felt the same so he told parables that gave a message depending on what one's level of comprehension was. Some people's level is fear, herd mentality or reward and that is what they see in the parable. Others see a metaphor to a non-linguistic concept. Jesus seemed to be guiding us from many levels and his lesson were appropriate for our developement. He did not force things if one could not comprehend the higher truths, but if he saw someone was ready the lesson was delivered. I think PCs do that with philosophy, opinions, jokes, teasing, puzzles, koans and just mystical foolish stuff. It is as if God is all around us playing hide and seek, but we are the ones hiding from him. We can't see Him/Her/It in everything and in every person so clues are given. We either open up and get the experience or we continue to hide. Therefore, those that know do not say, but they do give clues.

[JenellYB]

WS, I think you are tracking right along where I am in most your response to Steve's last post, except I'd use the word "theoretical questions" where you are saying "academic." I'd make that distinction becasue to me "academic" implies something "actual" that we can actually study, learn about. And such matters as are at the core of most proselyzing don't meet that definition. Where we are going when we die isn't something we can study or even really know. It even begins with a theoretical presupposition, that we are going ANYWHERE after we die! Besides down to to mortuary and eventual cemetary of crematorium, of couse.

 

And I'd fully agree, proselyzig is about what we beleive, not the way we are or how we live our life, though some about those things are usually sort of tacked onto the end of it, as in, once you really believe this, you will do that, and that is often presented as the proof or lack thereof that you really beleive to begin with. So if your behavior doesn't conform to that, we can always throw you right back into hell becasue it proves you didn't really beleive to begin with.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Soma, I love your observations about playing hide and seek, for in truth i have felt within my own perception of "Spirit" so many times a "playfullness", that has at times seemed even to me as that of an "other" using it as a way of draweing me out of my own tendencies toward faling into depressions, morbidity, tendency to take myself and everything else too seriously.

 

And I do not think we speak of these things this way, give clue as in a game of hid and seek, speak in parables and metaphors and silly mystical language, for any intent to be coy. I thik it is for that there is no other way, we literally cannot speak of them plainly and directly, for they are as those things Paul spoke of, of one caught up into the thhird heaven, where he heard thrings "unlawful to be spoken'. Not 'unlawful' as in a sense that you've get in trouble if you break that lawful dictate, but that, as a natual law, it cannot be broken. Just as we cannot defy gravity. we may apply knowledge of other natural forces, pertaining to aerodynamics, lift, etc, to get off the ground in a plane, but we still cannot defy or 'break' the law of gravity.

 

Jenell