What's wrong with evangelism?
You don't have to read much of the writings of early Friends to see that evangelism was an integral part of their life. Since "evangelism" is an overloaded term, let me explain what I am talking about. The word "evangelism" derives from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (EUANGELLION) which means "Good News". The word "gospel" means the same thing, coming from the Old English form of "good story/message". For Friends, the gospel was not simply a message because they understood by experience Paul's description of the gospel as "the power of God unto salvation". Preaching the gospel was Spirit-led, Spirit-filled preaching that awakened people to the Light of Christ within them - to turn them from darkness to light (a phrase from Paul that George Fox often quoted).
I would guess that many modern Friends are very uncomfortable with the idea of evangelism, and perhaps for a number of different reasons. If this does make you uncomfortable, why? Maybe you could ask yourself that and sit with it before reading further.
These are some of the potential objections that come to my mind:
I would like to hear of others. The reason I am bringing this up is to contrast it with our attitude towards the political process. By using the political process to do the things we think need doing, we are essentially imposing our will upon those who don't have enough votes. While one's religion is a matter of choice, and with Friends it has always been a matter of the individual making the choice to turn towards the Light, in the political arena, the minority doesn't really have a choice. The voice of the majority is backed by the law enforcement of the United States government (or whatever country you may be in). While I was at SAYMA last week, I heard Friends talking about our "window of opportunity" to get things done before the congressional elections start next year. I heard discussions about the effective ways to contact various government representatives, and about lobbying at the state level in addition to the national level. Why can't we also have discussions about opportunities to spread the Good News? Why don't we hear more statements like "many were convinced", as George Fox wrote numerous times in his journal?
Ceal and I had a long discussion about this one evening, and she asked me what someone could have said to me when I was 20 that would have reached me. I have to admit that I don't know. But, I also understand that it isn't the words themselves that are the important thing, but that they are spoken from the Spirit. Early Friends often spoke of their being a power behind their words, and I believe that power could have reached me, too.
No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket.
posted by Mark Wutka @ 3:32 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Hi Mark: Interesting to compare our sometimes differing attitudes toward evangelizing and politics.
Just because we're not called to convert by force doesn't mean we're not called to evangelize by example. We've got a Good Story and we can share it and invite others to join the Story with us, to come into Christ's Light, guidance and peace.
As to what might have reached you at twenty, I wonder if the example of a life lived for and with God is enough. I've heard many convincement stories where the teller was in spiritual crisis and remembered some Friend met long ago--a favorite aunt, or teacher--and started visiting with Friends knowing that there was something in that Spirit that called to their condition.
Martin,
There's a lot of space between converting people by force and only relying on our personal example. Our personal example is our strongest witness and it can be effective without any words. But I believe Mark is raising the possibility of actually being open with people about our beliefs--using words--and not just relying on our example.
When we refuse to say anything about what we believe it might send the message that we don't really believe anything. That makes us seem wishy-washy and unattractive. I think there is a middle ground between being verbally aggressive and refusing to speak at all. I think we should be finding that middle ground.
Martin,
Just because we are called to evangelize by example doesn't mean we aren't also called to evangelize by speaking and writing. I think Friends today have a tendency to just say "let your lives speak", and assume that's all we should do. Fox actually said "let your lives preach" in Epistle #200, but it it abundantly clear through his words and actions that he didn't think that was all Friends should do. I think he meant it more in terms of practicing what you preach.
As Richard says, there is a lot of space between converting people by force and simply being a personal witness. I am certainly not advocating converting people by force - God certainly doesn't seem to work that way. I'm also not talking about badgering people about whether they are saved. In between that and saying nothing, there's a lot that can be said. Why not speak out to people about the great amount of unhappiness there is in the richest nation on Earth? Don't we understand and have experience of something that is "unto some more than our appointed food".
I was thinking about "War Is Not The Answer" on my way home today, and how it relates to this - we are willing to say what the wrong answer is, but not anything about that "life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars".
Richard,
I think I am even going beyond talking about what we believe. I think we tend to get caught up in Quakerism as an idea, or even as a group with an admirable history. I think when I speak of evangelism I am more worried about how we put people in touch with "that of God" within themselves, and whether that means they become Quaker or not is not the important thing. Of course, they need a community that nourishes them and helps them grow, but I think that first step is the most important. Looking forward to seeing you in a few weeks at NCYM-C!
With love,
Mark
Mark,
I agree that it is not ultimately about Quakerism per se but about awakening people to the fact that "Christ has come to lead his people." This is the essence of Quakerism but it goes beyond the confines of any religion. And I am glad you are bringing up the issue and making people think about the need to tell people what we have experienced. Fox also says "What canst thou say?" So if we really do experience the life and power we should be able to actually talk about it.
See you at Yearly Meeting.
I am mindful of two important things that remain unsaid.
The first is: when we say that “evangelism” refers to “Good News”, we need to understand that the idea of it being “news” is a significant part of the recipe. Few people are ever much interested in “news” that is not truly news because it adds nothing to what they’ve heard before. In fact, if it’s not genuinely news, it’s not likely to be genuinely good, either; it’s a lot more likely to be genuinely tiresome.
An awful lot of the reason why liberal Friends don’t evangelize might be that nothing really worth sharing has happened in their spiritual life lately. This would also explain why so few have genuine ministry to share with their meetings on any given Sunday morning. (And on a related note: have you noticed, as I have, that most converts to our religion — or to almost any religion, for that matter — are brought in by people who are themselves new to the faith?)
I think this is also a big part of the reason why the first of the two traditional questions that Friends used to ask, on encountering one another, was, “How has the Lord dealt with thee since last we met?” There is an implicit point being made here, that genuine evangelism and genuine ministry begin with noticing how the Lord is at work in one’s life this very day, this very hour. And if thee hasn’t been paying full, focused attention to the Lord’s workings, that needs to be brought to thy community’s loving awareness, so that it can help thee get back on track.
The other important thing that needs saying is this: genuine good news of the Lord’s dealings with us, bubbles out unforced. The book of Acts can serve as illustration; all the evangelizing there is simple reportage, without prior planning or intent. When we force the thing, instead, it becomes one more case of what the early Friends called “will-worship”. And the fact that it is forced, is something any genuine seeker after Truth will pick up on, and eventually be turned off by.
Thus the proper response to a lack of evangelism cannot be, “Get out there and evangelize!” — for that simply produces will-worship evangelism, rather than the real thing. The proper response has to be, “Let us ourselves return to the Lord, where all the good news begins.”
Marshall,
Thank you for your insights. I agree that evangelism can't be forced - as I said in the original post, it should be Spirit-led and Spirit-filled. Part of my reason for raising this question, is to ask whether we have developed a cultural attitude against evangelism that is not centered in the Light of Christ, and might cause us to ignore or misunderstand leadings to evangelize. There are Friends who feel a concern for Gospel ministry - why is it mostly for ministry within the Society of Friends? Maybe that's what we need right now, or maybe there is an ingrained reticence against Gospel ministry to the outside world. As you have speculated on the reasons for a lack of evangelism among liberal Friends, what comes to your mind on the similar dearth of evangelism among conservative Friends?
With love,
Mark
Hi, Mark! Thank you for your response.
I agree with you: my sense that evangelism can’t be forced overlaps with yours that it must be spoken from the Spirit.
I don’t believe, though, that it is any kind of “cultural attitude” that holds Friends back from evangelism. I believe, as I tried to make clear, that it is a lack of something genuine to say. When a person has a genuine experience of Christ and his Spirit to share, no cultural prejudice is going to silence her. Or him.
Now actually, I don’t understand what you mean about a “dearth of evangelizing” among Conservative Friends. Genuinely Conservative Friends, and in particular those who are associated with Ohio YM, have been doing a great deal of evangelizing; and it has been quite successful too, drawing in many new people to the Church and establishing new meetings all over the place.
I will confess to having some mild disagreements with the Ohio approach, which I think a little too focused on the Jesus of history rather than on his Spirit in this moment. But I understand why it is this way! And there is no getting away from the fact that these Friends have genuine news to share, about both Christ and the Spirit, which is just bubbling out of them, as it should be.
Have a look at the Ohio Yearly Meeting web site, and also the “Conservative Friend” web site, if you have not done so already. And tell me what you think.
Hi Marshall,
It feels to me like there is a resistance to evangelism among liberal Friends, and maybe you don't feel that way, but there can also be multiple reasons, and it is certainly possible that it can be the result of a lack of something genuine. I don't really want to make that judgement, although I do feel it is important to talk about what the "genuine" experience is like, and how it moves us, as you have done here.
I did look at the OYM pages, and I really like the web sites. I think that they provide an excellent form of outreach, but to some extent, it still feels like talking about the idea of Quakerism. I'm not saying that is wrong, but is there a lot of one-to-one engagement of people, or going out and seeking people instead of the more passive outreach of a web site? It still seems like one feels the power of the Spirit when people are gathered together in a way that is hard to convey digitally.
One of the tricky things for me about the "Good News" is that it isn't just a message - it IS the power of God. Is that power being preached? (Is it even being experienced? - I think that's the point you have been making about liberal Friends).
With love,
Mark
Mark, I hope I’m not wearying you with this dialogue! You are my friend, and I don’t want to impose.
I agree that there is resistance to evangelism among liberal Friends; I just don’t think that it is silencing a genuine evangelism that would otherwise be happening.
I thank you for looking at the Ohio YM and “Conservative Friend” web sites. What I’m saying is not that they are themselves the evangelism that Ohio’s Conservative Friends are doing, but rather, that they show evangelism is indeed happening in the Ohio Conservative world.
The latest news reported on the “Conservative Friend” site (and BTW, my apologies for my failure to provide a functioning link to that one the last time around!) is that a new Ohio-affiliated Conservative meeting has formed in Greenville SC. Did you see that? This follows on the heels of other new Ohio-affiliated Conservative meetings recently formed in Michigan and Greece. You will also note a link on the main Ohio YM page to a letter from an Ohio YM evangelist working in Calcutta (Kalikut), India.
All this is evangelism — one on one, face to face transmission of Good News — happening and bearing fruits here and now.
The annual gatherings of Conservative Friends held in Barnesville, Ohio (the latest was just this month), and the support Ohio YM has given to the Emergent Friends movement, are also bits of face to face evangelism.
In North Carolina YM (Conservative), Lloyd Lee Wilson has been engaged for decades in an evangelical effort that has reached many. It has a different flavor from the evangelism of Ohio Friends — less focused on the historical Jesus, and more on the very special expression of Truth that is traditional Quakerism — but it is evangelism nonetheless.
I don’t feel it’s right to speak about myself, but I think you know a little about what I’ve been engaged in. Come to this year’s annual sessions of Iowa YM (Conservative), especially on Thursday night, and perhaps you will see more.
I hope this will settle your mind on the matter of whether it’s actually happening amongst Conservative Friends.
Hi Marshall,
This conversation is certainly not wearying me, I find it very stimulating! Thank you for further clarification about the things to look for on the OYM page. I was actually aware of the Greenville meeting. There is a worship group here in Atlanta that is affiliated with OYM through Rockingham MM. I also know that the Keystone Fellowship is fairly new. I see David Eley from that meeting at NCYM-C, and occasionally other places. I also know about some of Lloyd Lee's recent work. He did a series of public meetings around Woodland, NC and talked about who Quakers were and about the Quaker version of Christianity. He condensed these down into a single presentation for representative body that was really great. They have since gotten a few new members at Rich Square MM.
I know that people are turning to Christ's Light, and we can see that in the growth of these meetings, and I am very happy to see that! I do wonder, though, how many of those people came because they were attracted by the idea of Quakerism, or because it fit their general understanding of God, as opposed to a more direct experience of the Light (as an experience and not necessarily an idea), and is the evangelism more of "this is who we are and what we believe", or more of awakening people to the Light of Christ within themselves. You spend more time among conservative Friends than I do, so I expect you know better than me. I have to say that I came to Friends because it seemed to match my understanding of God - so I'm not saying that there is something wrong with that approach, just wondering about those people whose understanding of God doesn't match ours, and who wouldn't go seeking information about Quakers.
I'm sorry I won't be able to attend the Iowa YM (C) sessions. Ceal and I really want to visit, we just can't work it out this year. We will again be visiting NCYM-C, however, and I always feel at home there.
Thank you again for continuing this conversation!
With love,
Mark
Marshall,
When I spoke of the "dearth of evangelism" among conservative Friends, I had a very narrow definition of "evangelism" in my head, which certainly doesn't encompass all the ways we spread the Good News. Thank you for helping me realize that.
With love,
Mark
Mark,
I'm catching up on your blog!
I can't tell you how strongly your words and concerns here -- as well as those of Martin, Richard and Marshall -- speak to me. Marshall and Richard are quite right and make good points about the forms and contexts of Friends evangelism. But I very much understand your distinction between just talking about the ideas of Quakerism and an evangelism centered on sharing a direct experience of the Light of Christ in our lives. For me, that is a very important distinction. The first is good, but the second is vital and central.
Hello Mark --
I became a convinced Friend a couple of years ago because I believe God called me to Himself.
It began with sudden passages of Scripture coming to mind in the middle of the night, which then became reinforced while reading George Fox's journal and other early Friends' writings.
I also believe He further guided me to contact Ohio Yearly Meeting. Several of their members have been faithful in e-mailing, calling and even travelling several hundred miles to visit our fledgling worship group; for which we are extremely thankful.
So even though it would seem that they are few in number, some Friends are indeed heeding the call to evangelize. However it is not by their own plans or efforts that people such as myself are being drawn in, but by the Lord's.
Hi, Mark. I'm a convinced Friend from a liberal Midwestern meeting, where I received membership this past November. Sometimes I question my evangelical impulses- are they true leadings of the Spirit? Or are they the subtle fruits of a contentious spirit? I hear from weighty Friends in my Meeting "Friends don't proselytize" so often, in so many contexts, that I sometimes wonder if there is something wrong with me, something "un-Quakerly," because of my desire to witness for Christ.
I actually find that it is easier to proclaim myself a Christian outside of my meeting than inside, though I certainly make no secret of it. I just have the feeling that some people in my meeting don't want to hear what the Christ-Spirit has to say when it leads me to speak. I still do, but it can be uncomfortable.
Hi A.G.,
I have posted before about proselytizing vs. evangelizing. The statement "Friends don't proselytize" is both correct and incorrect. Remember that proselytizing is trying to convince someone to convert to one's faith, or to join one's party, institution, or cause. In a religious sense, Friends don't proselytize in that it is the Holy Spirit that does the convincing, what our speech and actions should do is to turn someone to the Inward Teacher who takes it from there (and I would call that evangelizing - putting people in touch with the Gospel - the power of God). I think modern liberal Friends use the phrase "Quakers don't proselytize" to include evangelizing.
Now, I think the statement "Quakers don't proselytize" is also VERY incorrect about many modern liberal Friends. They DO proselytize about political and social issues, and I believe it is wrong to leave the faith aspect out of this. If it is our relationship with God that drives us to work for peace and justice, why do we not look to awaken others to that same relationship?
All that being said, there is always the caution of making sure one's words come from God and not from the ego. When Paul talks about what we do when we gather for worship, he says "Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church" - are the messages we hear building up the church, strengthening us, calling us to be more faithful? Or are they more about people proclaiming their own issues and concerns, whatever they may be?
With love,
Mark
Mark-
I agree with you that many liberal, unprogrammed Friends conflate proselytizing with evangelizing. In fact, it goes further. I once pointed out to one of the most respected Friends in my meeting that, unless you just happened to know about Friends or live in Pennsylvania, there didn't seem to be any way for a non-Friend to even be aware of the fact that Quakers *still* exist, much less what we believe or stand for. Her response was that the lack of commonly known information about Friends was the price we pay for not proselytizing. I happen to be very uncomfortable with the idea that projecting a specifically and identifiably Quaker identity into the public sphere is in itself proselytizing, but there you have it.
In fact, the notion that "Friends don't proselytize" seems to put the kibosh on discussions within the meeting. Although within the meeting there is a hunger for deeper conversations about our beliefs, it sometimes seems that merely talking about our beliefs constitutes "proselytizing", at least for some Friends. Lest I accidentally malign anyone, this has never been verbalized, but it sometimes feels a part of the atmosphere of the meeting.
As an aside, I feel so blessed to have come across this and other blogs through the (for me) newly discovered Quaker Quaker website. It's fantastic to find out what other Friends are saying about issues that I care deeply about.
Post a Comment
<< Home