Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Alfred,
    
    It is most difficult to witness to some at times, it is true that a
    lot of people do not want to hear the word. I find for myself if they
    say stop or show signs they no longer wish to listen, I then just try
    my best to show them that I realy care for them and try to set a good
    exsample so they may see Christ in me. I then keep praying for them
    and wait for them to ask questions or untill the Holy Spirit guides me
    to witness to them again.
    
    We are told to love all and to love others is to tell them the truth.
    But we must be sensitive to thier feeling at the same time. They must
    be given milk first.
    
    Some sow the seed, some water, God harvest.
    
    Christ is the only path to the Father.
    
    Out of the fire comes a desire to know Him.
    Peace,
    Bill

    
    	Any one not willing to share what they believe must not be to
    excited about it.  Either that or they are not secure in it.  As 
    .0 said, it is the 'duty' of every christian to share their faith.
    
    	The bible says let the redeemed of the Lord SAY so.  I have never
    told anyone about my new glasses and had them get offended.  Neither
    have I told them about my new car and had them say they weren't
    interested.  So why is it, when I get excited about my saviour and
    tell them about Him, that they get put off as if I just walked up and 
    spit in their coffee?
    
    	Jesus said that the gospel is a rock of offense.  A stumbling stone
    to those who refuse to believe it.  Is it a 'christian' thing to do to
    ignore what you believe at the expense of others.  If there is a real
    hell, like most christians believe and if Jesus is the only way to 
    escape that hell, which He is, then it is the christians responsibility
    to tell everyone headed there (hell) how to escape it.  
    
    	In the parable of the wedding feast the bible says to COMPELL them 
    to come.  Many will make excuses not to come but the call is still the
    same.  As christians we don't need to apologize for the gospel.  We
    must tell everyone and leave the apologetics to the agnostics.
    
    	_ed-

    
    
    I guess what I find difficult about the concept of 'witnessing'
    as held by born-again christians is that it is so intrusive (IMHO).
    I would be much more touched and inclined to investigate further
    if I 'witnessed' a person living their lives in a loving manner
    than I am with someone telling me I am a sinner and need to repent
    and do what they are doing.  Isn't Christianity the only religion
    that attempts to convert in this way?  Hasn't it learned yet?
    I truly believe that the Earth is in this sorry state because 
    native cultures were destroyed, and it was these cultures that
    maintained our important connection to nature and the understandings
    of how to work with her rather than manipulating and eventually
    destroying her.
    
    I don't mean this as an attack, just stating how I feel about all
    of this.  I guess this is why Creation Spirituality appeals to me.
    It honors of God, Christ *and* nature.  It appreciates other
    belief systems.
    
    Carole

    
    
    Oh, and I just remembered an example of what I call intrusiveness.
    I'm not a sports fan, but whenever there is a game on TV there is
    *always* someone in the stands with signs pointing to biblical
    passages.  Is there any other religion that does this sort of thing?
    
    Carole

    
    � Is there any other religion that does this sort of thing?
    
    	I guess no other religion is worth getting excited about.
    
    	8o)
    
    	_ed-

    I do not believe in proselytizing, and I resent it when others attempt
    to convert me.  Not too long ago, someone from a local Baptist Church
    came knocking on my door, complete with pamphlets about what I needed
    to do to be "saved".  It was a complete intrusion on my privacy (for
    one thing, I wasn't completely dressed when they came), and I told them
    I wasn't interested and closed the door before they even had a chance
    to begin their spiel.

    -- Mike

    Re .0
    
    I do not at all "wonder sometimes if Christians hurt the cause of
    Christ by being insensitive to situations and methods."  I am quite
    sure that they do.  I think the biggest obstacle to Christian
    evangelism is the Church's own bad record, past and present.
    
    As to pamphleteering and door-to-door witnessing, it is a truly lousy
    method.  I've been on both sides of the tract and seen it failing. 
    Once in a blue moon, it may produce a convert, but mostly it provokes
    derision and the kind of annoyance recorded in .-1.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    re .6
    
    Sounds like your response was just as warm and considerate as thier
    intrusiveness....
    
    
    I agree that there is a genuine lack of genuineness in the Church's
    testimony these days. 
    
    
    Jamey

    
    The purpose of witnessing is to share the gospel.  It is not to ensure 
    the results that only God can secure through his grace to the person
    hearing and responding to His Word.
    
    Sharing the gospel gives the hearer the opportunity to accept it or
    reject it.  Sharing the good news may only plant a seed that someone,
    somewhere comes along and waters later on.
    
    At any rate, it is perfectly acceptible to be rejected for sharing
    God's truths and should be expected.  Jesus said that the world hated
    Him and that they would also hate His followers.  He gave clear
    instructions about dusting off one's feet and hitting the road when a
    hearer rejects the witness.
    
    Remember, it is an honor to be persecuted for Christ's sake!  If you
    love only those that love you this is nothing special - even the
    vilest folks often love their own families.  But if you love those that
    hate you - this is something worthy of God's approval since He commands
    it.
    
    It has always been difficult to witness for Christ.  We have it easy
    today in this country.  Who of us could withstand the persecution of
    the church in its early history.
    
    jeff

    Sorry, Jamey, I am under no obligation to accomodate people who make
    an unsolicited intrusion on my privacy, and I won't apologize for
    closing the door on people who do so.
    
    -- Mike

    I've just gone and looked up the word "witness" in Webster's.  It
    states:
    
    	"n. 1. One who has personally seen, heard, or experienced
    something. 2. Something that serves as proof or evidence. 3. a.One who is
    requested to testify in court. b. One who is present at and can attest
    to a transaction.  v. 1. To see. 2. To give proof or evidence.  3. To
    be the setting of."
    
    Seems to me that the Biblical commandment to be a witness is best
    described in the second definition of the verb form.  Our lives should
    be "proof and evidence" of our "personal experience" with God.  When
    our lives are "proof and evidence", those who are ready to hear the 
    message will come and ask about our experience - just as witnesses at a 
    trial are asked to come forward.  Nowhere in the definitions of witness 
    do I see any encouragement for the aggressive pushing of viewpoint which 
    is inherent in door-to-door solicitation and the like.
    
    Alison

    Re .9
    
    Of course the evangelist cannot ensure results.  Even an excellent
    witness can be rejected.  Even a dreadful one MAY succeed.  But doesn't
    the same duty to witness also require as good a witness as possible? 
    And isn't a good witness one that is appropriate? that avoids offense
    when avoidance is possible? (I know it is not always possible,
    especially in an era when being offended is a quick way to take the
    moral high ground.)
    
    If a method (like pamphleteering) is known to turn people off, would 
    it not be better to improve the method?  The method is not the message,
    after all.  We don't evangelize in order to be persecuted but in order
    to persuade people that Christianity is a good thing.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    in re .12 Earl
    
    Exactly! I get the feeling that there are people who do 'Christian
    witness' that almost enjoy feeling self righteous that people turn
    them away. i.e. they go out looking to be persecuted so they can
    feel superior to the people that refused to listen to their
    message.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    re .13
    
    Amen.

    Re.9
    
     Jeff:
           Surely you are not equating disagreement with your religious
     beliefs as persecution, are you ?
           What do you mean about the "vilest of people loving their
     families" ? Do you consider non-Christians vile ?
           While I may totally disagree with about religion this does
     mean I hate you and would never persecute you , nor allow anyone to
     if I am able to prevent it. 
            Do not presume that not accepting Christianity means a person
     hates Christians.
    
    
                                                       Mike
            

    I agree with Carole (.3) and Alison (.11)(and thanks for the
    definition) that "witnessing" does not equal "preaching". Being a good
    example, showing people how Christ would have us live, is the best way
    to teach the word. 
    
    Mike,
    	we seldom close the door on well-intentioned intruders at our
    house. Not if Geri is home. She has a nearly infinit capacity to sit
    and listen to them and nod her head. She occasionally uses some of them
    in her plays, though I doubt they'd be flattered. Personally I find it
    insulting that they should assume that I do NOT know of Christ or that
    their vision is clearer than mine. That they would impose their
    presence upon me at a time when I have other things to do - and I
    always have other things to do at home - is indeed intrusive and
    unwelcomed. And if they ask if I'm too busy to talk about God then I
    can truely say "I gave at the office.". ;-) I do try to always be
    kinder to them than they are to me - it doesn't take much. 

    
  Re.17    "Being a good example"
    
      A very wise man, Ben Franklin said:
    
           "One good example is worth a hundred sermons." 
    
                       
    
                                                       Mike

    
    Jesus said, "Go out and preach the gospel to all the nations..."
    
    This leaves the methods for implementation very open, don't you think?
    
    Door-to-door witnessing can result in people coming to a knowledge and
    acceptance of Jesus Christ.  It matters not that some folks don't care
    for the method - that is to be expected.
    
    jeff

    Re .19
    
    Yes, the choice of methods is open, so we should use our judgement to
    choose the best ones.  Of course "some folks" won't care for any method
    at all, but it is my experience that door-to-door methods antagonize many
    more people than they reach.  If you don't think so, we will simply
    have to disagree about the facts.
    
    But going around antagonizing people on the remote chance that some of
    them will be convinced does not strike me as either good neighborly
    behavior or smart salesmanship.  There are plenty of better methods
    already in use.
    
    Like this conference.  (Potentially, anyway.)
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Re:  .20

I tend to agree, Earl.  I'm not opposed to going door-to-door, but I
am very much open to friendship evangelism where individuals share as
they have earned the right to share.

Collis

    re .20 (ATSE::WAJENBERG)
    
>    But going around antagonizing people on the remote chance that some of
>    them will be convinced does not strike me as either good neighborly
>    behavior or smart salesmanship.  There are plenty of better methods
>    already in use.
    
    	But in a manner of speaking, this method was exactly that which was
    used to spread Christianity at its outset.  Of course, neither Jesus
    nor his disciples were motivated by a desire to antagonize their
    neighbors (who, at the outset, were their fellow Jewish brothers); but
    both the Gospels and Acts make it clear that antagonism was present
    almost everywhere that the Christian message was spread.  (In fact,
    some were so antagonized that they followed the apostles from city to
    city to incite the local populations as well, just in case the apostles
    couldn't do the job well enough on their own.)
    
    								-mark.

    Re:  .22
    
    Mark -
    
    Yes, this method was used at the beginning of the Christian movement, a
    time when there was no other or better means of communication.  Today,
    in the days of mass media, telephones, essentially global
    communication, those methods may no longer be the best or most
    appropriate to use.  Just because something was done in a certain way in 
    the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's the most effective means to
    use today.
    
    Nanci

    Re .22
    
    I have already agreed that no method of evangelizing will be
    antagonism-proof.  When people are put off (as they generally are) by
    door-to-door ministries, they are, I think, put off by the method of
    delivery, not by the content of the message.  That does no one any
    good.
    
    From what I can tell, the apostles' methods seem to have been largely 
    preaching (and often arguing) in synagogues and market places.  They 
    do NOT seem to have been going door to door handing out little Aramaic 
    pamphlets containing general-purpose sermonettes.
    
    All I'm saying is that if you want to get a message across, you should
    adapt your delivery to the audience.  St. Paul went so far as to "be
    all things to all men."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I would contend that Jesus and his apostles did not go door-to-door. 
    Jesus preached in the synagogues, apparently under a prevailing
    structure which allows any member of the congregation to discuss
    particular scriptures.  He also preached in the open air, where all who
    were interested could hear.  In both situations, both those who wanted
    to hear his message and those who were offended by it were present -
    but it was not the personal intrusion of knocking on a door.  I can't
    think of an instance where Jesus or his disciples went to a household
    uninvited.  Certainly there were those who hounded him and his
    followers, who whipped up the populace against his message.  After all,
    Saul was bound on just such a mission when he was blinded on the road 
    to Damascus and "saw the light". [ :-) ]  And there is a place for such
    preaching, distasteful as I may personally find it.  [ BIG :-) ]
    
    However, it is probably useful to distinguish between "witnessing",
    "preaching" and "evangelizing".  For me, none of them should come to my
    doorstep uninvited, offered by those sanctimonious enough to believe
    that because I do not attend their church, I lack the "proper"
    relationship to God.  
    
    Alison

Alison,

You give too much insight to those who would knock on your door.  Presumably,
they know nothing about your walk with God when you open the door.
Naturally, you are free to decline the invitation to talk.  But I
agree with you that this is usually seen as intrusive in our society.

Collis

    
        Ya know I gotta admit I am surprised at peoples reaction to
      people knocking on their door to witness or evangelize or
      whatever you want to call it.
        Heck I am not even a Christian and I don't find it that big
      a deal. I just tell them I understand that they are doing what
      they feel is important work, but I do not wish to sit and talk
      with them. In every case these folks politely go their way. Usually
      they ask if they can leave some literature. Come on, lighten up
      folks these are decent, hard working, tax paying, ordinary people
      just like you are. These ain't exactly ax murderers on your door
      step. 
        If they have come at a bad time I just tell them that. Most
      them usually say they are sorry for disturbing me.
        Now, either I get a much nicer group of door knockers out here
      in W.Mass. than are common in the rest of the world or a lot of
      people are blowing this a bit out of proportion. 
         Be nice to these people ! A little politeness won't kill ya
      and the world will be a much nicer place if we all mange to be just
      a tiny bit more polite to each other.
         Now you wanna gripe about something, try people who disturb
      my supper by calling to sell me time share condos. Now they should
      be shot ! ( Just kidding, honest !)
         So much for my little sermon. I'll climb down off my soapbox
      for now.                 
    
    
                                                       Mike
       
         

    I am usually polite and courteous to religious people who knock on my
    door; however I tell them I am not interested, in a polite manner.
    
    While reaching for a carton of milk once in a supermarket, a member of
    the Boston Church of Christ -- a church that nearly destroyed the
    sanity of one of my closest friends -- asked me if I would like to
    attend a Bible-studies meeting.  Although I felt angry inside, I
    politely said, "Thank you for thinking of me, but I am essentially
    satisfied with my spiritual life, as it is."  He then tried to follow
    me around the store, informing me of how easily men/women of different
    spiritual orientations can come to know Jesus and appreciate the
    literal-interpretation of the Bible.  
    
    The only thing that will ever get me to even consider modifying my
    spiritual belief system is *example*, not door-to-door techniques.
    Jesus did a lot of preaching, but much of his life was EXAMPLE; he
    lived (and died) what he preached, pretty graphically.  If I find that 
    someone embodies that essence and radiates God's love, or God's Spirit, 
    then I pay VERY close attention to that person and what his/her life is 
    all about. That's when someone begins to rub off on me.  Interestingly 
    enough, these type of people, who set beautiful examples in their own 
    lives, cut across religious and non-religious boundaries.  They are
    Christians, Jews, agnostics, eastern mystics, or whatever.  One need
    not be preaching the Bible in order to send a divine message to others.
    I mean, think about it.   How many people would ever take seriously
    anyone who says, "Let me tell you about the path that leads to eternal 
    life and salvation.  It's good for me, and I want to show you how it's 
    good for you too."  Not many.  
    
    God has "ambassadors," but his true "ambassadors" are usually not those 
    who go around saying, "I represent God."  You can usually sense who they 
    are by the example they set in their own lives, how they interact with
    humanity and the world around them.
    
    Paul     

    Allow me to quote from my own note in GOLF::CHRISTIAN (and perhaps my
    only note to date in that current version of the file).  The subject
    under discussion was this notes file (CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE):
    
================================================================================
Note 43.101       On starting a new Christian notes conference        101 of 116
ABSZK::SZETO "Simon Szeto, ISEDA/US at ZKO"          50 lines   8-OCT-1990 23:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .91 (Gil):
>                                                             However, for
>   those who are: 1) Grounded securely in God's Word, 2) have sensibilities
>   that are not easily offended, and 3) are firm in their beliefs... it's
>   a good place to learn how "liberal" Christians believe and to practice
>   your apologetics.

    I quite agree with this assessment.  Doctrinally I "belong" to this
    (CHRISTIAN)	conference; for me, it would be like going to church/Sunday
    School/fellowship/Bible study in this conference.  The other conference
    I would consider an outreach, where I meet others on their ground.  One
    thing I have learned about witnessing: see those three points of Gil's
    in the above quote.
    
    For me, witnessing is not only handing out tracts or telling folks
    about the Four Spiritual Laws and quoting John 3:16.  Too many are
    turned off by that approach and you never get to talk to them again.
    I would like to engage them in dialogue.  Indeed, this was what I had
    in mind more than six years ago when I started the first BIBLE notes
    file:
    
    [text omitted]
    
    Now, brothers and sisters, you may certainly ask how many people I
    brought to Christ that way.  I honestly tell you I don't have any idea.
    If you say then that this approach doesn't work, I will not argue.  Do
    I not want others to know Christ?  Of course I do.  But I bide my time. 
    I speak (when I have chance) the message I believe, and "contend for
    the faith that was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)
    
    [text omitted]
    [end of quoted note]
    
    By temperament I am not the type who would go out and hit someone over
    the head with the Bible.  I find it much more comfortable (and so do my
    friends) to be the type who "witnesses by example."  But I have not
    completely resolved whether this is truly Biblical.  Statistically, how
    many people became Christians because of the good Christian example of
    others?  What's more important, was this what Jesus told his disciples
    in the Great Commission?
    
    Part of the conflict that a contemporary Christian faces is that
    proselytizing is a dirty word.  People may "value" your "difference" in
    being a Christian in a secular society, but they don't appreciate your
    preaching to them.  Are Christians then limited to preaching to the
    converted?
    
    I think that both method and content of preaching/witnessing are at
    issue.  An aggressive style turns people off.  So does a message that
    emphasizes sin and repentance.  A message of love (or Love?) is far
    less objectionable.  But when one's tenets include repentance and
    conversion, that is going to bring one's witnessing to a decision point
    somewhere along the way.
    
    --Simon
    

    If we could only show the Love, the Holy Spirit would bring conviction
    for repentance.  "I stand amazed at the love of Jesus the Nazarene!"
    Then, by comparison, I see the sin in my own life.
    
    I seldom (if ever!) show the Love persuasively enough.
    
    Nancy

    A dialogue, as opposed to a monologue or an effort at merely
    proselytizing, implies a willingness to listen as well as speak, to
    learn as well as teach.  It means accepting differences where they
    occur. John Woolman wrote in his journal that he visited the Native
    American communities in order to learn as well as to teach:

        "It being a rainy day we continued in our tent, and here I was led
        to think on the nature of the exercise which hath attended me. 
        Love was the first motion, and then a concern arose to spend some
        time with the Indians, that I might feel and understand their life
        and the spirit they live in, if haply I might receive some
        instruction from them, or they be in any degree helped forward by
        my following the leadings of Truth amongst them."
    		- John Woolman's journal, 1763

    Mike .31,
    
    John Woolman is my kind of guy/person!  For some time I'd been 
    thinking of picking up a copy of his journal.  I'm now going to 
    make a point of it!!
    
    Many thanks,
    
    Karen 

    Someone said that if there had been just 5 John Woolmans, the
    American Civil War would probably have been averted.
    
    Richard

Article        18426
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Church Leader Condemns Christian Aggression
Date: 2 Nov 90 13:04:57 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
 
The following is an excerpt from an address by Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios,
Metropolitan of Delhi (the Orthodox Syrian Church) and President for
Asia of the World Council of Churches.  The occasion was an inaugural
ceremony announcing the coming of the 1993 Centennial of the Parliament
of World Religion held in November 1989 in Chicago.
 
" ...I am convinced this is so: so long as Western civilization or
Western Christianity dominate the World Parliament or Concourse, it will
not work, because the identities of the other religions are very oppossed
towards both Western Christianity and Western civilization for their
aggression against the other cultures of the world.  Western civilization
has been a largely one-way mission, in which both the civilization and
the church have claimed to know all the truth and refused to listen
to aspects of truth from the experience of the rest of humanity.  And
therefore, I want to say this from my heart: I love my Western brethren
and sisters; I love my Western Christian brethren and sisters also.
But where they dominate, an impasse prevails which does not allow the other
cultures of the world to function.  They are helplessly dominating.  Men
or women, they cannot do anything but dominate.  And, therefore, the most
important thing for a global concourse of religions is that Western
civilization and Western Christianity to be humble and courteous
enough to take a back seat.
 
" The West has contributions to make, of course.  Especially, their
capacity to organize is unparalleled -- even by the Japanese! And
so we will need your help in the organization of such a global
concourse of religions.  But can you do it without dominating? Quietly.
And let others do it their way?  Try!  Then we might be able to use
your God-given capacity in our common work, not as a leader, but in
a more modest way.  Otherwise, we will find the rest of the cultures
of the world still inhibited by fear that they will be steam-rollered
by Western civilization, Western Christianity and their values and
approaches.  This is a very fundamental thing I wanted to say on
this occasion."
 
Jack Carroll

re Note 94.2 by CSC32::LECOMPTE:

>     I have never
>     told anyone about my new glasses and had them get offended.  Neither
>     have I told them about my new car and had them say they weren't
>     interested.  

        This does not dispute your main point, but I often get
        offended by how people talk about their new cars --
        ESPECIALLY those who are pointedly comparing them to my older
        and lower-priced car (or who are comparing the fine
        engineering of their imported cars with the sloppiness of my
        American car).

        Also, I used to live in Colorado, although I am a New Jersey
        native.  Apparently a lot of people now in Colorado came from
        New Jersey.  Most of them seemed to enjoy putting down New
        Jersey, which offended me (and still does).

        My point is not to dispute your main point, but to point out
        that offensive presentations of secular points of comparison
        do occur all the time between people -- there is nothing
        unique about Christianity in that regard.

        Bob

re: Note 94.0 by Alfred "Rationally Irrational" 

Hi Alfred,

I hope I'm not treating you as an "easy target".  I did find a few points in 
your note to which I feel called to respond.

>        Many people consider it harassment to tell them that they are
>        going to hell.  ... how can we say, truthfully, that people
>        who don't believe in Jesus as Savior can go to heaven?

Personally, I find those statements only appropriate for God to say with any 
degree of certainty or authority.

>        I still feel the need to witness in all places. But I have
>        come to realize that some methods, at least in some places and
>        with some people, are counter productive. I wonder if sometimes
>        Christians hurt the cause of Christ by being insensitive to
>        situations and methods that drive people away. 

Amen.  You are very wise.  And caring.

>        Still such patience is hard for people who have love in their 
>        hearts. 

What did Saint Paul say about Love and Patience?  (And you're right, truly 
loving a person may not be easy, but it is a joyous burden.)

>        ... Why do we tell people they are sinners? Because they, like
>        ourselves, are sinners. Should we lie and be unfaithful to
>        our own beliefs? 

I can only tell a person that *I* am a sinner.  If they see any part of 
themselves reflected in me, then I can but share that part of myself.
The goodness and the failings alike.  I find that if I share of my own 
journey, I am never alone, however if I try to steer someone onto my own path, 
I get bogged down on the side of the road.
        
Peace,

Jim