What's Your Christian Witnessing Style?

[perihelion]

I'm going through my LiveJournal and cleaning out five years worth of entries so I can use it as my new Sims blog. Here's something I wrote in 2006 that might interest you:

Teary Eyed, Tremble Lipped: Trust Me, I'm Your Friend

You're the overly gentle sort who isn't averse to turning on the waterworks in order to gain a lost soul or two. You do your best witnessing with your intended target in a squashy armchair, plied with tea or cocoa. A clasp of the hand, some tears in your eyes and you can literally plead with them for ten minutes or more.



The Soapbox Savant

Fire and brimstone is the order of the day. You're at your best on a street corner or in a parking lot - the kind who literally thumps their Bible with the heel of their hand in order to emphasise a point. But sadly you often get carried away, diverting from Scriptural principles and making more enemies than converts. You're not above bashing [insert alt group here], which explains why people tend to despise you.



The Scriptural Trendsetter

"Hey, I want to show you the most amazing thing.../Heaven's like this huge party, all your friends are there..." You try-hard. You're either doing your utmost to sell the Bible as the hottest thing since the iPod Nano, despite the fact that it's nearly 2000 years old. You're most likely to be found doing motivational speaking at youth groups, running drug prevention programs or chatting to teen goths.



The How-To Manual Salesperson

"It's like a manual for life. The most practical guide for our day." Sure it is. At least, that's the picture you'd like to paint of the New Testament, completely forgetting that the Old Testament is full of blood, gore, rape, genocide, kidnapping etc. You're the door-to-door type, or possibly the telephone type if you can't get around for whatever reason. You do your best witnessing when chatting to people informally, having a yarn with an unbelieving friend or neighbour.



The Prayer Warrior

"I'm going to pray for you!" Go ahead. Make my day. Chalk me up on your mile-long list of unbelieving poeple who you pray will take the Jesus pill. You're extremely firm in your scientifically disproven belief that ardent prayer controls other people's lives and promotes health. You're so extremely pushy and peachy keen when it comes to witnessing that you don't realize it's turning people off, and pray like it's going out of fashion when they don't respond to your overtures.



The Ambassador

Now here's someone who actually reads the Bible properly. The apostle Peter is practically your homeboy - his advice to be gentle is constantly ringing in your mind. You don't so much witness as just sort of teach. "I'm a Christian, this is what I believe, yadda yadda yadda..." You make a lot of friends, and even the occasional convert. You act nice toward gays, befriend Pagans, date atheists and generally demonstrate what a true Christian should be like.



Snooty Sam/Sally

"You're a what? That's really stupid. Yeah, you go believe in that crap. That's nice." If it's not Christianity, or possibly atheism, you think it's the biggest joke since Clinton's sex scandal. Buddhists? Eat some meat for once in your lives. Pagans? Dancing nekkid around a fire is only going to get your bits burned off. New Agers? Bunch of tree-hugging, granola-crunching hippies who talk to crystals all day long. Scientologists? Who stopped THEIR medication?
It's no wonder no-one listens to what you have to say. You have little or no respect for other people's beliefs, so why should they care about yours?


Deaf Knight In Thick Armour

You live by the Epistle of Jude and tell people they worship Satan, despite their repeated truthful insistence that they don't. If you're a minister or lay preacher, you're most likely to have a website featuring lengthy and colourful (sometimes even illustrated) treatises on defending your faith to others while bashing theirs in the same breath. You pick one or more particular versions of the Bible, and no matter how badly translated they may be, you loudly and proudly declare that it's the gen-u-whine article and any other version is pilloried by a cartoon of Satan holding it and saying 'We hope you like our Bible'.

[AngryBunny.]

None of these describe me, but I suppose the closest match is a Snooty Sally. I do believe that some religions are over the top, but at the same time I thoroughly respect some religious people for their devotion and good will. I could go on for days about the long list of things I have against certain religions, but I keep my opinions to myself and will respect all religious people... to an extent. If a friend tells me not to swear around them because it's against their beliefs, I will apologize and remember never to swear around them again. If a stranger politely hands me a prayer booklet on the train I will smile and say thank you, but I will probably just bin it when I get home. However, if I'm walking down the street and encounter an (aptly named) "Soapbox Savant" who waves their Bible in my face, calls me a sinner, and tells me that I'm going to hell for wearing a skirt that is higher than my knees (yes, it’s happened), I will most likely want to punch them in the face. I will respect you, if you respect me.

[paksetti]

Lolol.

Obviously not all Christians are like this... but every religion has annoying people. I most often get the How-to-Salesman, and when they give up, they turn into a Prayer Warrior. I'm pretty lucky, I suppose. I mean, they are trying to change my faith, and more often than not, when I say I'm anything but a Christian, that's how the conversation ends up. But, they are awfully polite for the most part. I did get one particularly bitchy Snooty Sam though; she would just sort of scoff at everything I said, even when it was established fact- like the Heliocentric Theory...

I'm actually really surprised how often this comes up, maybe it's a southern thing, but I can only think of two examples of me revealing that I wasn't a Christian that didn't end in someone trying to convert me... you know, irl..

[SimsLover50]

I'm of the 'don't ask, don't tell' mindset. I don't want to know anyone's religious beliefs. Honestly.

I especially find it pretentious when Christians believe I know nothing about their faith even though, I have a lifetime experience with this religion.

[kiwi_tea]

I am of the Mahalia Jackson school: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiI52WluF0

[Oaktree]

I am of the Mahalia Jackson school: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiI52WluF0

Damn, that woman can sing. I have a fondness for a lot of religious music, even though I'm not religious. Probably in part because of all the religious music I had to sing in my years in choir, and in part because there's a lot of beautiful religious music out there.

Anyway, I don't generally try to 'convert' people to atheism. I'm fully aware of the fact that people aren't generally swayed by arguments opposed to their beliefs, unless their beliefs were on shaky ground in the first place. Though I do love a good debate, so I'll sometimes argue about the logic (or, rather, illogicality) of religion.

[Robodl95]

I guess the ambassador would be most like me but in general I don't talk about my religion unless asked, I'm friends with people of all different beliefs and we get along fine. Most people in my area realize that there are lots of people with different beliefs and just ignore it.

[maxon]

Hah - good thing you are being funny. Most of those seem pretty ick to me.

[alayaya]

I'm not religious personally but I have a lot of friends who are. I think many of my christian friends would fall under the "ambassador" category... They're friends with me after all! However I do also know quite a few "scriptural trendsetters" as well. These are usually the youth pastors though, who's job it is to make christianity fun and appealing to young people.

I also have a few old friends (from highschool) who would fall under the "snooty sam/sally" category... I've sort of stopped talking to those people though. They're just not that nice and very closed minded....

[iCad]

Well, all Christians are supposed to be "Ambassadors," but...yeah. :) I suppose that's what I am, although I don't consider myself an "evangelist" at all, really. I agree with Oaktree that people are generally set in their religious (or non-religious or anti-religious) ways, and nothing I say is going to sway them. Sure, I'll expound on stuff if asked or if someone says something n a debate that's just so grossly wrong that I can't keep my trap shut (Which happens most often when dealing with Creationists more than non-Christians, actually. :lol: ) On the other hand I DO do prison ministry, but my aim generally isn't to convert anyone so much as to offer counsel and friendship to those who, currently, are considered lower than murderers: Sex offenders. If some have a change of heart, so much the better, but that's not my real aim. However, I DO bring cookies with me when I go. Which my daughter, an awesome baker, bakes herself. So I'm literally a "Come to the Dark Side. I Have Gooey Home-Baked Cookies!" kind of "evangelist." ;)

[kiwi_tea]

I agree with Oaktree that people are generally set in their religious (or non-religious or anti-religious) ways, and nothing I say is going to sway them.

I totally disagree. I mean, I agree in general, that it's very rare for people not to cling to their partisan positions. But I joined a series of internet debates as a young teenager, arguing in favour of Christianity, and against some Australian Creationists. I lost those debates to the atheists and agnostics, and while I understood that debating isn't supposed to be a challenge to faith, the apparent utter indefensibility of theism on so many levels shook my faith. I began to question the value of faith as a way of "knowing". I wasn't a literalist. I was a dedicated Anglican who prayed and really felt I was in a relationship with a god. I took me a long time to say, "This may be me projecting", and a much longer time still to say "I don't know there is a god, and if there is, I don't know the first thing about it/him/her/them." But internet debates changed that position for me, they allowed me to entertain the idea of being skeptical - a skill I wasn't offered in school or home - and it was the catalyst to me teaching myself one of my now core values: Skepticism of my own positions - faith is a nasty, nasty thing.

I have a friend from Chicago who also participated in those debates. She went through the same transition as I did a few years after me, due to debating the issues, so I suspect it's not just me. I get quite frustrated with this idea that all debate/argument about emotive issues is fruitless. I went through a similar change between "stauch meat-eating farmer's son" to "oh fuck this whole meat-eating argument I have is indefensible" as well.

[iCad]

I get quite frustrated with this idea that all debate/argument about emotive issues is fruitless. I went through a similar change between "stauch meat-eating farmer's son" to "oh fuck this whole meat-eating argument I have is indefensible" as well.

Well, that IS why I said "in general." :) Sure, it is POSSIBLE to change minds. I've changed my own quite a few times. But none of those times were because anyone "evangelized" me or because of participating in any kind of "debate;" they were all a result of my own thinking, researching, etc. On the flip side, I have also changed minds. I've disabused Creationists. I've disabused theists when I was an atheist. And, as a Christian, I've "won a few converts," as they say. However, those were greatly outnumbered by the number of failures I had, on all fronts. Issues of faith (or non-faith) are in general things to which people cling very stubbornly, for whatever reason, plus NO ONE likes to admit that they might have everything all wrong. IN GENERAL, I think "evangelism" of whatever kind only works when people already have doubts about whatever it is that they believe in in the first place, as I believe Oaktree also said.

But, y'know, this isn't a debate thread, so...yeah. :)

[RoseCity]

Here's one - I call her Stealthy Stella. You meet her and she's all about I want to be your friend. You find out she's a Jehovah's Witness, but that's cool. Maybe you meet for coffee or have playdates with your kids. Then one day, Stella shows up with a young guy and they start talking to you about coming to the Kingdom Hall. Or in the middle of a conversation about cooking, apropos of nothing, she asks you if you've ever wanted to swim with dolphins or play with lions. Not wanting to waste her time, you politely say that you have no desire to be a Jehovah's Witness. Suddenly you find out what Stella really thinks about you. Maybe she calls you a whore. Maybe she relates the joy she will feel when the Angel Whoever at the end of the world runs you through with his fiery sword and maybe you tell her that if the alternative is spending eternity with her, you'd prefer to be skewered. Maybe she expresses her sorrow that you won't be one of the lucky ones who get to live in the heaven on earth after God takes over. Poor Stella, her time spent and zip to show for it.

[AlexandraSpears]

Is there a nickname for us who just leave tracts in various places?

[Lance]

Various places? You're Waste Paper Delivery Service.

[kiwi_tea]

when people already have doubts

I guess that's what I'm disputing, though. I never had any doubts about my religion until those debates, which were much more structured than what we call the debate forum here (for a start they were mediated, and you could win or lose). I mean, even after becoming non-religious, it took a long time for me to realise that Adam and Eve, or Noah's flood, or Moses weren't real history. I believed this huge body of ancient mythology was real, some literally, some non-literally, and it all fit together so that as long as I didn't engage with critical sources (that a teenager would seldom encounter), I had no need for doubt. I was absolutely surrounded by people who took for granted that Moses was an actual historical figure. I did sort of arguably have doubts about slaughter, because I think it's hard not to feel bad when you kill something, but I didn't feel bad enough that I thought I should stop participating in home slaughters.

I was persuaded to abandon faith, in a way that faith can't persuade anyone: With reason and humility.

Theistic evangelism can't persuade by anything except emotional exploitation or specious arguments about cosmic design and intent. Whereas promoting an evidence-based worldview that makes theism untenable isn't evangelism, only a call towards reliable ways of knowing and learning. Hence the epistemological incompatibility between religion and science. Richard Dawkins isn't an evangelist. You can call him a dick if you like, but he's certainly no evangelist.

Theistic evangelism can sooth doubts by filling in the unknown with a god of the gaps. Promotion of an evidence-based worldview, of using science and reason in concert, of benefiting from our advances in philosophy and science, only fosters doubt about the what's actually in the gaps. I didn't have doubts that allowed an argument to shake me down the rungs I was already descending, those debates put doubt in me.

Not debating. Discussing.

[maxon]

Richard Dawkins isn't an evangelist. You can call him a dick if you like, but he's certainly no evangelist.
You certainly can since his name is Richard.

Sorry unable to resist that one.

[minimogut]

I guess I'm probably the Ambassador. I don't try to press my religion on other people, but I get disappointed when they try to make me feel bad for what I think, or mock what I think. I try to read the Bible on a regular basis.

[iCad]

@ kiwi:

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, of course. I was speaking in generalities; you in specifics. IN GENERAL, I choose not to try to "evangelize" in the traditional sense because, when push comes to shove, I believe that people who are convinced by others to believe in something don't do so as "genuinely" or as deeply as people who seek and find for themselves. I think the former results in a "surface conversion," for lack of a better term, while the latter results in a genuine change of mind/heart. So while I will gladly talk about what I believe if someone asks, or I will answer questions put to me by someone who is spiritually seeking and I will occasionally say what I think when someone else says something blatantly wrong and it pisses me off, in generally I don't believe that bludgeoning others with what I believe does much good. I believe that's true no matter the belief in question.

So...You found your way; I found mine. But in both cases we did so by thinking and, I suspect, because we both had "holes," acknowledged or not, in what we already believed. I think anyone who has an open mind, by definition, has such "holes." Call them doubts, call them questions, call them gaps, whatever. Thinking and reasoning and such fills in the holes, resulting in an altered or sometimes an entirely new belief or philosophical mindset or whatever you want to call it. In your case, debating with others caused to you think about and question what you already believed, but I don't believe that you would have been open to doing so if you hadn't already had some doubts in what you believe. At least, it would surprise me greatly if that wasn't the case, but I suppose that anything is possible. :) In my case, it was personal experience that caused the same thing.

So, I suppose that I believe that while talking about or debating with others could certainly be a catalyst that encourages a person to think about their beliefs (IF they are already a person with an open mind who responds well to such "debates;" not everyone has both of those qualities) and that such thinking might ultimately lead them to change their mind about whatever it is that they believe, I also believe that some people are so set in their ways and so closed-minded that I can talk and talk and talk and nothing that I do or say will make them think. Call me a cynic, but I think the latter sort of person is far more common than the former. At least, that's been my own experience.

As for Dawkins...Well, I'll call him (a) Dick for the reason that Maxon stated, but...Well, I tend to think that human beings are all creatures who espouse and will occasionally advocate whatever it is that they believe to be right in the hope that they can convince others that they're right, too, if only because it strokes one's egos to be right. In that sense, I believe that we're all "evangelists." If we weren't, there'd be no such thing as debate or heated discussion. Since I estimate that Dawkins is a human being, given a lack of evidence to the contrary, I'd say that he "evangelizes" as much as anyone else does. :) But I'm guessing that you might have a different definition of "evangelist" than I do.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i think religion, like most of humanities ideas, was a beneficial set of guidelines... that people have added and added to and now has become such a convoluted, counter-productive mess that i can see both loving it and hating it. i think religion is supposed to be the essence of self-assurance that one can carry in their heart, and dont need to proclaim to the world or brainwash others into accepting. if its valid by you, what higher validation is there, really? whose validation do you value more than your own, if you truly give it..?

trying to resist the urge to launch off on a tangent... i dont think im any of those 'witnesses'. im more of a Disgruntled Observer... i (happily) have no personal investment in religion or religious beliefs, but sometimes i just cant resist the urge to ruffle feathers or (hopefully) ask questions that challenge those beliefs and promote thought in those who claim to believe them. i count myself as 'spiritual', since i do believe there is more to life than what we can see, hear, touch, sense... but i do not believe in any god or specific entity as a religion would define itself by. lets just put it as, i believe in Is, and Is Not.

in a nutshell, i dont care about what a person believes, as long as they believe it because they want to, and they know why they want to believe it.
...that being said, i think its wildly inappropriate to attempt to 'convert' people. how disrespectful of personal boundaries is that? very. very, is the correct answer.

[perihelion]

Various places? You're Waste Paper Delivery Service.

*rimshot* (http://instantrimshot.com/)

If Chick Tracts are involved, then they're 24-Hour Hateful Delivery.

[Robodl95]

Hence the epistemological incompatibility between religion and science.
Science and religion do not have to contradict depending on how you view the Bible, I really like this description and it's how I see it.
Prof. AYALA: One way of explaining my views is that we may consider science and religion as two windows through which we look at the world. The world is one and the same. But what we see through those windows is different. You know, science has to do with the expansion of galaxies and movement of the continents and the origin of organisms and adaptations. Religion has to do with our relationship to our creator and to each other, with the purpose and meaning of life, with moral values that govern our lives. So, they deal with different subjects so that no need to contradict each other.

MARTIN: What I hear you saying is that religion is about the why. Science may be about the how. But some say religion does explain the origin of life. And I think that that should be taken, literally, according to scripture and taught literally.

Prof. AYALA: Well, statements that are made about the origin of life are scientific matters. And statements that are about them should be based on scientific evidence. Now, the sacred book, the Bible, in particular, uses descriptions to make the religious message understood. But I think it's a mistake on theologians going back to the very beginning of Christianity and the commentaries to the Bible have said that the Bible should be seen as a book of religion or as San Agustin put it, it's a book to tell us how to go to go to heaven, not how the heavens were made. That's for science
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125499990
and another related article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-science-can-coexist_n_974116.html

[kiwi_tea]

Yes. Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) theory. It doesn't work because almost all religions make scientifically examinable claims, from the claim that intercessory prayer works, to the claim that a man rose from the dead, even down to claims of what caused the universe/existence. Almost every religion makes claims that overlap with science. Also, polling consistently shows that religious people are many times more likely than non-religious to dismiss a well-evidenced scientific fact if it conflicts with their faith. That's pretty much the definition of epistemological incompatibility. NOMA only works by cognitive dissonance.

Also... ...science gives us knowledge about things which we can test and trust. Religion is just an exercise in reinforcing idiosyncratic prejudices, without knowing anything in support of them.

[vhanster]

I don't really discuss religion much unless I'm interacting with fellow Christians during fellowships. I do sometimes tell my friends (who are non-Christians) about my religion if asked, but otherwise, the topic we talk about are general stuffs like school, family, hobbies, etc.

[Robodl95]

It doesn't work because almost all religions make scientifically examinable claims, from the claim that intercessory prayer works, to the claim that a man rose from the dead, even down to claims of what caused the universe/existence. Almost every religion makes claims that overlap with science.
Did you ignore the entire article that I pointed you to? I know that prayer won't really help anyone but it is a form of meditation, it's a good venting tool. People also benefit if they know you're thinking about them. I equate praying with hoping.
Also, polling consistently shows that religious people are many times more likely than non-religious to dismiss a well-evidenced scientific fact if it conflicts with their faith. What is your point with this? I never said that religious people aren't ignorant sometimes, what I said was that it doesn't need to be like that.
Also... ...science gives us knowledge about things which we can test and trust. Religion is just an exercise in reinforcing idiosyncratic prejudices, without knowing anything in support of them.
Morals and the purpose of life aren't things that you can test (or even trust).

[kiwi_tea]

I did read your first article about the Templeton-funded theologian/scientist. The first issue with that being that the Templeton Foundation is a religious organisation pretending it's supporting science by throwing wads of cash at scientists willing to say there's no conflict. So surprise surprise, Ayala says there's no conflict. That's what he was selected for. It doesn't make it true. The idea that science and religion are two windows into the world is silly. Science is a study of the world. Religion isn't. What can theology contribute to our understanding of the world? Religion isn't about the why, it doesn't answer that any more than saying "We are all here to feast on cheese and Moro bars" answers that. There are a lot of whys we simply can't currently answer - the cosmic whys.

The fact that Ayala isn't a materialist speaks volumes. Materialism isn't just an a priori philosophical position, it's the only metaphysical position that has ever gained reaffirmation by our study of the world. Science has only ever been able to advance by accepting materialism, at least methodologically, more and more, and the study of nature went from being an outlet of the churches to a direct threat to their authority. To accept philosophical materialism begs the question, sure, but all the alternatives aren't even in the competition. Surely Ayala is a methodological materialist when doing science, or how does he do it?

And on what basis does he dismiss philosophical materialism? On the basis that he doesn't want it to be true?

People also benefit if they know you're thinking about them.
Actually the results of research into prayer are surprisingly mixed. Some studies have shown a number of patients actually getting worse when they know they're being prayed for, presumably because they think they are in more danger if someone needs to pray for them. It's worth noting these studies tend to select patients and prayers who believe in the power of prayer, for obvious reasons, so it's not just an effect of skeptics in the hospital beds. Prayer is obviously also equated with desperation and despair, because this effect has been replicated quite a bit.

Prayer does often (not always) have similar benefits to mediation for the person of faith praying. That's the most we can say for it, and it's not nothing. It's a relaxation therapy, helps clear the mind.

What is your point with this? I never said that religious people aren't ignorant sometimes, what I said was that it doesn't need to be like that.
Just tell me: Did Jesus rise from the dead? Did Moses part a sea? Were Adam and Eve real? Does god intervene in the real world?

For it not to be like that requires, at the very least, Deism with no surrounding claims. Even that strays into railroading quantum physics, and conflicts massively with what we know about biology and consciousness (it's like saying the universe is just a giant The Sims 3 with no coding or hardware to produce it - a bit crazy and weirdly specific and suspiciously ego-centric given the venue). Pantheism might seem like a way around that: "The universe is all one big brain", etc, but there's no evidence of that.

Morals and the purpose of life aren't things that you can test (or even trust).
Morals are things you can test, discuss, reason out. We do this, not in science, but in philosophy referring often back to science: Ethics.

If there's a COSMIC purpose to life - that's just a mystery. Religion doesn't answer that, it just feigns it. We're all conscious, social animals though, so we have purposes thrust upon us by our animal nature: survive, care for others, eat, play, create. And we have the intelligence (but not always the material well-being) not to cave to our stressed out, nastier impulses.

But can I ask you, as a religious person: What's the purpose of life?