This past Friday night, May 7, several big ideas were voiced in our conversation.
"I think the church should do away with evangelism."
“Science is more valuable than Jesus.”
“You need to decide which is number one, Jesus or science.”
“In America, the regions where the highest percentage of the population would say emphatically, 'Jesus is number one,' are precisely the regions with the highest levels of divorce and child abuse. So what, exactly, is the value of getting people to declare that for them, 'Jesus is number one?'”
The debate went round and round. On reflection I was not satisfied with my input, so here is my more considered response.
On Evangelism
We did not put an agreed definition of evangelism on the table.
There were several notions implicit in our conversation.
Evangelism means seeking to persuade others of the truthfulness and value of what we believe. If this is what we mean by evangelism, then all of us last night were engaged in evangelism, especially those who were argued the church ought to cease doing evangelism. That argument is obviously an attempt to persuade others to change their opinions and behavior. During our conversation one person was promoting the power and value of science. Another was preaching the value of the ministry of presence. Still another affirmed the priority of Jesus and the importance of declaring one's faith in him. All of these are evangelism in the sense of advocating a point of view and seeking to persuade others to adopt it as their point of view.
If evangelism means telling other people that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so they could have eternal life, keeping quiet about this would be an expression of disregard for the happiness of others. This is the meaning of evangelism in the New Testament. The word “evangelism” comes from the Greek word for gospel which means good news. If you possess good news, it is natural to share it. If you possess life-saving or life-enhancing information, regard for others would compel you to seek to find ways of sharing that information in a persuasive, believable fashion. Which is evangelism.
If evangelism means a particular method for persuading people to join “my church” then to evaluate its appropriateness we would have to consider the details of that system. Certainly there is a place for systems that help people move from chaotic lives of unbelief to ordered, productive lives as believers. I question the content and methodology of some of the Adventist evangelism I experienced as a kid. Rejecting those objectionable elements or even rejecting the mindset behind them (we have the whole truth, everyone else is suspect) is NOT the same thing as rejecting evangelism as an entire category of Christian life.
If by evangelism you mean a manipulative, dishonest or coercive attempt at persuasion, then all of us would agree that is something to be repudiated. However, a radical rejection of evangelism, a rejection of all attempts to share the happy content of my faith or all attempts to persuade others of the truthfulness and value of my world view, my religion, my understanding of Jesus, would be a rejection of the very human activity of talking about what matters most to us—whatever that is. If I believe anything—that Jesus is Lord, that science is good, that exercise is beneficial, that eating less promotes happiness, that Grand Canyon is beautiful—If I have opinions, it is natural as a human to voice those opinions to others. This is an essential part of human culture. This also happens to be a general description of evangelism. Prohibiting evangelism turns out to be a prohibition on a very large and essential category of speech. Not good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not a provocateur! If you define evangelism as living as best you can then that's a pretty worthless definition. There's no specific message, no participation. Simply passive existence. It's also the kind of evangelism I like best. It's the other kind of evangelism that the comments were directed. The proactive telling gospel truth, and the proselytizing the church does. I reject the inherent assumption of evangelism that says people are inherently bad. That people I don't know don't have a relationship with the divine and that I need to teach them. This evangelism is very much what is at stake, because it goes to purpose. Simple conversion is a very petty ambition for the church. We should be more than a simple numbers game. If the point of evangelism is to make better people then it has been a failure. For all of our missionaries and evangelism our efforts haven't improved the world. Let's set that bar low. Lower than just infidelity or abuse, let's set it as low as genocide. Christianity Nor even Adventism has prevented this. If we can’t help to lift people beyond even that level of darkness what good is it? This is where science came in. Science has done things that are unimaginable. Tech and socio-economic advancement have created peace and prosperity in much of the world. When some country experiences a rise in violence they don't seek more religion, but more of the things that science can provide. They want economic development, not a revival. And that works, unquestionably. I even disagree with your list of "Evil Science". It's true that science isn't perfect. It has it's own peculiar flaws, failings, and accidents. But science is merely a tool. It is the knife. In the hands of a surgeon it can save precious lives, in the hands of another it can be a devastating weapon. Science itself has no say. A gun does not have an underlying morality; it's the hand on the trigger that is responsible. When science uncovered something spectacular about the universe someone built a bomb. Personally I consider it a kind of blasphemy. But the quest for violence does not lie at the feet of science. People will kill with sticks or an ICBM. That they do so does not make science evil. And sometimes people misuse science as a pretext to kill people in the same way that they misuse religion as a pretext to kill people. Science DOES make statements about what a person ought to do. In fact, for most things on that list science is the answer. Scientists, based on their research, have been screaming their heads off trying to get people to literally clean up their act. And if it wasn't for scientists in the first place you might not even know there was a problem. In parts of the world where there is very little development people don't live happy fulfilled lives. As spiritual as they are, they live violent chaotic lives. Now the whole point, counterpoint of science and religion is actually rather destructive to the original issue. Because they are clearly not mutually exclusive. Obviously it's ok to live in a scientifically advanced society and still have a relationship with Jesus. I think the church should leave the numbers game and instead foster an intellectually and culturally rigorous environment. Historically the church has been really good about that. There is a 1000 years of art and architecture. The church has collected, preserved and disseminated knowledge for centuries. IN fact the Muslim golden age did very much the same thing. The darkest periods of the church were the times when it stifled free thinking and innovation. Perhaps unsurprisingly these were times of intense violence. We saw it then, we see it now around the world. The church has it within itself to encourage open-mindedness and exploration. I can easily imagine a modern equivalent, however in this spirit of bitter partisan bickering I do not foresee it anytime soon
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your major points, especially science is a tool. Whether the use to which it is put is good or evil very much depends on the wielder of the tool.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with your statement, "Science DOES make statements about what a person ought to do." Scientists make such statements. But when they do, they stepping outside of science. Science by definition is anchored in physical reality. That reality says nothing about "ought." Is life better than death? Is happiness better than misery? Is beauty better than ugly? Is plankton better than trash? Science cannot answer these questions.
When scientists address these questions, of necessity, they are speaking on the basis of knowledge, opinions, perspectives that lie outside the realm of science.
Science can no more answer the questions of spirituality, esthetics and morality than a tape measure can answer the question
Oops. Here's the rest of my sentence. Science can no more answer the questions of spirituality, esthetics and morality than a tape measure can answer questions about luminosity or mass. Science is the wrong tool for some jobs. The question of what we OUGHT to do about anything is a job science by definition cannot address.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of oughts, some are relevent to scientific inquiry some are not. If what you ought to do pertains to the physical world science is your best bet, if it's the spiritual world (spirituality, esthetics and morality). In this case science wouldn't even understand the question. But yes, science can analysize the composition of the ocean tell you how much trash or other pollutants there may be, what the effect the trash will have on the environment, and the course of action that ought to be taken. If you delve into the realm of psychology science can offer insight into trauma and recovery, or alternately how to live a better life, how to care for children. A study in economics can help people understand wealth how to care for it. Financial planning (which is at least informed science) is used by most people to tell them how to they ought spend their money and plan for the future. Science can tell a society how many fish to catch, how to manage waste, how many trees to cut. It can provide insight into how to manage our lives, to care for our children and, in fact, managed to correct a great many errors of religion. Again, it's not perfect and there is much knowledge yet to be collected especially in the relm of psychology which is a science still in its infancy. Can it offer insight into what is beautiful? or what is moral? Not well. It's not a universal tool. But the application of knowledge is as much in the relm of science as is gathering it.
ReplyDelete