Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The title of christian has less impact than the awareness, belief, desire to "save " unbelievers from the christian perception that unbelivers are hell bound . This position often not presented well nearly always connotes being judgmental, with a disturbing side order of legalism.
I don't see the presentation as a problem. What's judgmental and legalistic is original sin and eternal damnation themselves. How can you possibly present to someone that they are moral defectives and "desperately wicked" and bound for hell, quite independently of their actual conduct in the world, in a way that is not filled with judgment, shame and condemnation?
No matter how quickly you insert "but god loves you and has freely forgiven you", the damage is already done.
From what justtitans has relayed, I would compare it to a similar event for free camel rides where the woman was having some fun but then got all bent out of shape when she found out that X Corp sponsored it and she hated X Corp because she once worked for them and had gotten fired.
However, while I don't think there was a thing he could have done or said to this woman at this point, I do question why there was no indication or sign saying who was sponsoring the event .Not to be doing so with absolutely no motive...wanting at least the good will for hosting ...seems a bit unbelievable and she may have seen it as a sneaky lure.
I think this is the most fair and objective post I have seen thus far and you bring up some legitimate points, so let me address what you said here.
You are right in that there was no real way of knowing if there was a church sponsoring the event unless it was told to the individual. That is one of the reasons why I thought it was important to share that with this individual. When the time was appropriate in the conversation, which again she came over and started, I explained to her that we were a church. I never tried to hide that personally. When the opportunity presented itself to explain that to her, I took it. So for those who are suggesting that I withheld that information, it's just as you said, it's not necessarily me personally that didn't make it clear, but it was our church that made that decision.
When I was at this church, the pastor believed it was important to not be so outward about being a church, but rather being more outward about our actions. He wanted to show people in the community how Christians are supposed to behave and to remove any indignation that a person may have towards Christians. Does that mean it's right or wrong? It's not my place to say, it's a strategy towards ministry and given that I was under that covering I respected it and did my part in it, as long as it wasn't contradicting the word. My wife and I had conversations about those events and we wondered if the approach that was taken was the right one or if there was a better way. At times I could see it being a beneficial thing and other times I could see it being damaging. I look at it like this, with this strategy you will get a reaction where people are pleasantly surprised and excited to learn more about what you do as a church (which worked as some people ended up coming to visit the church after those events), or you have the reaction that the girl had where she felt tricked, so to speak.
I can understand, based on what you have said here old_cold, how she would feel betrayed in a sense. But I look at this like an employer looking at a resume. If the employer sees a resume and sees how qualified a person is for a job, but this employer also happens to be prejudice towards certain groups of people. Should the view point of how the employer viewed the applicant change, once they see what race the applicant is? Using that as analogy not necessarily an equivalent situation, I think that is the part that I disagree with her reaction. If she said, okay well I have to go, and walked away, then it would appear the same, but it would still be an issue that she has to overcome. I think what this comes down to, with everyone who is analyzing this situation, is do you believe all Christians are inherently bad people? If you do, then yes you are going to rationalize any negative reaction in this situation. If you believe Christians can be, at least in part, good people, then I believe it's fair to be open-minded about the fact that a different church than what you have experienced can be different than the Christians you have been around. You don't have to agree with their beliefs and as long as no one is forcing anything on you (which was not the case) then what is the harm?
You are asking me for bible references about the heaven being manifest in us..... Jesus taught the way and that when God's will is done that it is done in us, are you serious ? Have you any idea that the kingdom is within, that the will that is done in heaven is the will Jesus taught us to pray to be done on earth ?, where on earth is it being done if not in those who are of that kingdom ? learn of me Jesus said, learn what ?...... The way of the Father, the way it is done in heaven. Can you not accept or understand anything that is not word for word, wall to wall bible literalism ?. Like i said, the church the woman suffered the bad experience no doubt believe all that you do and more than likely believe too that the issue was not with them or the message, but with her.
I'm just asking for you to post what scripture you are referencing and nothing else. Is that an unreasonable request?
I don't see the parallels that you are drawing here, which is why I am wondering where this is coming from.
She does not need to do a thing. You are analyzing this woman without qualification. How ironic you cannot abide the scrutiny you requested. Her mindset is moot. You can only examine your own mindset, and expectations.
You crossed paths for what, five or six minutes? I can see it had a great impact on you. I think that is a good thing. It shows some introspection, and thoughtfulness, but it is a bit blocked. No worries though.
I am amused... very amused, Grasshopper. You have much to learn. It is okay, though. You will get here. I have hope.
Now, here. a FREE HUG... for you.
If you believe getting an angry at a total stranger for something that someone else did to you, then yes I guess you are right.
I would say then, that sneaky was correct.
If it there was no intention to ever let people know who the sponsor was and you innocently revealed that information, the story would be different.
The idea was still to reel them in first and inform later....intentionally.
Bad, bad idea.
I would say then, that sneaky was correct.
If it there was no intention to ever let people know who the sponsor was and you innocently revealed that information, the story would be different.
The idea was still to reel them in first and inform later....intentionally.
Bad, bad idea.
In hindsight, I don't completely disagree with you, but I think we are seeing this a lot with evangelism these days. Churches are going to non-traditional sites and having services, they are having events that you don't expect churches to have and you also see Christian artists who are removing the labels as a Christian to reach a broader audience. I think the concern is, people will not listen to a message once they know what you represent. You see it here all the time on this website. If certain people post on here, it will garner more of a reaction then if a lesser known person posts the same thing. That is an ad hominem of sorts. We as people are wired to associate certain behaviors with certain groups of people without further analyzing the individual. I'm not defending the strategy that is being used, but I understand why it was used. They want to remove the indignation of Christians from nonbelievers.
I will say at the same time though, I will not ignore someone just because of what they represent. I am open minded enough to hear what they have to say to me. I have had bad experiences with some atheists, but I also know other atheists who I have been around who are good people and whom I would even consider acquaintances. I think it would be unfair for me to treat them different just because a few have been rude to me. I think at some point as individuals, when we are hurt by others we have to learn to stop projecting our hurt on anyone or anything that reminds us of that hurt.
In hindsight, I don't completely disagree with you, but I think we are seeing this a lot with evangelism these days. Churches are going to non-traditional sites and having services, they are having events that you don't expect churches to have and you also see Christian artists who are removing the labels as a Christian to reach a broader audience. I think the concern is, people will not listen to a message once they know what you represent. You see it here all the time on this website. If certain people post on here, it will garner more of a reaction then if a lesser known person posts the same thing. That is an ad hominem of sorts. We as people are wired to associate certain behaviors with certain groups of people without further analyzing the individual. I'm not defending the strategy that is being used, but I understand why it was used. They want to remove the indignation of Christians from nonbelievers.
I will say at the same time though, I will not ignore someone just because of what they represent. I am open minded enough to hear what they have to say to me. I have had bad experiences with some atheists, but I also know other atheists who I have been around who are good people and whom I would even consider acquaintances. I think it would be unfair for me to treat them different just because a few have been rude to me. I think at some point as individuals, when we are hurt by others we have to learn to stop projecting our hurt on anyone or anything that reminds us of that hurt.
I agree in part, but it boils down to this. Is the point of your interaction with non-believers to bring them to Christ? If so, than to many of us any kindness you show, any sense of goodwill we get from you feels deceptive. There is a hook in your bait, and we want no part of it. This is not specific to you, this is an inherent issue in fundamentalism from its inception. Fundamental Christianity arose as a reaction to the mainstream denominations focus on social issues, and physical needs. But by focusing on evangelism, much of Christianity has set up the expectation that any kindness, charity, friendship or love has a catch, a hook. Honestly, the only way to get around this is to abandon the concept of evangelism, which I don't think many Christians can do. As long as you are trying to sell something, anything other than a straightforward sales pitch will be regarded with suspicion.
I agree in part, but it boils down to this. Is the point of your interaction with non-believers to bring them to Christ? If so, than to many of us any kindness you show, any sense of goodwill we get from you feels deceptive. There is a hook in your bait, and we want no part of it. This is not specific to you, this is an inherent issue in fundamentalism from its inception. Fundamental Christianity arose as a reaction to the mainstream denominations focus on social issues, and physical needs. But by focusing on evangelism, much of Christianity has set up the expectation that any kindness, charity, friendship or love has a catch, a hook. Honestly, the only way to get around this is to abandon the concept of evangelism, which I don't think many Christians can do. As long as you are trying to sell something, anything other than a straightforward sales pitch will be regarded with suspicion.
-NoCapo
So how do you bring someone to Christ? If you don't tell people about it, and your actions don't show it, then what other way is there to grow the gospel?
The notion that you feel someone showing kindness to you feels deceptive, again validates the point that I made earlier. If you have been hurt before (not necessarily saying you specifically) and it's by someone luring you in with kindness, but only in the end they treated you poorly. You are almost always going to look at the next experience that starts off the same, from that same perspective. Life is all about perspective. If you have never experienced church, or how good or bad it can be, then you are less likely to take on the mindset you just described. People's perception of church is going to be largely shaped by their previous experience. I'm not saying that is unusual, but I am saying that judging someone or something based on something that happened to you that is unrelated to them is not necessarily accurate or indicative of how those people actually are. So then the question becomes, can you get to a point that you can fairly and objectively determine if someone has good intentions or not? If you go back to your previous experience, you will likely never give the opportunity to find out.
I do agree with you though that kindness and other acts are used as a way to hook people when that's not necessarily the right way to go about things, if it's not genuine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
