conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

You already know my thoughts on this vis-a-vis CCW. In general, evangelism is hard for the liberal church for several reasons. I think some people look at church as an inheritance to be passed down, even in the liberal church, so they don't see that they have a role in the outward recruiting process. Others see the church as an organization that has a committee or team responsible for outreach and evangelism and if they aren't on that team, it isn't their responsibility. Still others define evangelism as something those right-wingers do. In their minds, the liberal church will attract people because of its liberalism and perceived people-centric ideal.

Of course, all of these are wrong-headed, and the last is almost arrogant. I have come to believe that much of the malaise is tied to a combination of perceived authority and worth. Liberals don't necessarily believe that they have enough of an answer to share. We look at church as a place to look for answers, but find it difficult to talk about the process of looking as a centering place that has enough worth to attract others. We certainly don't believe that our choices have the weight of authority to inspire others. Just writing this opinion gives me pause, as I don't believe I am speaking for more than my own perception.

The cure is to teach by example and gentle leadership to increase the perception that we have a valuable thing that is worth exposing to others, even at risk to ourselves. But, marketing has something to teach us in this area. If we believe that we have something valuable to share, the key activity is to get people to try it. We are not focused on getting them to believe what we do or to agree with us, but we want them to try what we have and see for themselves. This means that most people can allow others to carry the weight of evangelism if they are actively doing what they believe. Helping missions, caretaking, warmth and hospitality framed by a Worship service that emphasizes the beliefs of the church in uplifting ways will be a magnet for like minded people.

What I wonder is if we think that what we have to share is ourselves or God. Some may say that there is no difference...or that all we have is ourselves. And to some degree this is true. "Christ has no body now but yours." But it is still Christ that we share.

And this is where I think we are challenged by our own theology...and we should be. People can enjoy the others who gather as God's people. But principally we gather as God's people. This is part of what we have to teach. Is this marketable? I don't even know if that is a good question.

Evangelism is, at its core, sharing something of value. Do we value it enough to share it? To name it as "Jesus?"

I don't think that the liberal position in a Christian church can disagree with your comments at all. Of course we believe that we have found value in our relationship with God as defined through Christ. But it seems to be semantic to say that what we really share is Christ. What I think we share are the values taught and exemplified by Christ. We revere Christ for being connected to God, either as part of the Trinity or not, but what the church has to give is the knowledge that studying and following Christ's teachings leads to a better life on earth for you and for the people you touch. Beyond that, we have to grow into a personal faith that allows one to suspend disbelief at some level.

The church needs to work with people where they are. Perhaps it is the mission of the conservative church to meet the people who are frightened or who need easy answers. Perhaps it is the mission of the liberal church to help the secure and confident people to fill a hole in their soul. The difficulty with this point of view is that it smacks of eliteism and WASPy Christianity. But there is a truth to this natural allocation of personalities and learning styles. Embracing who we are, acknowledging that who we are is flawed, but that part of our mission is to attract those with similar flaws and work through them.

I know that salvation is a key part of your theology. I suspect that liberal salvation is a process more than a destination. Part of being liberal is knowing that we aren't through changing and growing. It is salvific to know that God loves us for who we are and without conditions. That salvation is a message worth sharing, but it is too powerful to discuss with strangers. So we need to find the intersections between their lives and ours and make them want to discover more about us, and therefore, find out more about this form of salvation.

Re: thursdays, I've always sympathized with Arthur Dent.

BTW, tomorrow is Towel Day! Be hoopy!

There's already an interesting discussion going here in the comments, which I don't want to derail. But I do want to offer my point of view, which seems to me to be pretty far off from both of yours.

I'm categorically opposed to evangelism. When it's directed at me I receive it as a personal affront. I absolutely refuse to do it myself.

Christianity is known worldwide. It wasn't in the few centuries after Jesus was killed, but it is now.

I'll live out my values as best I can. If anybody asks me why I make some decisions the way I do, I may discuss with them the way that the commandment to Love One Another shapes my lifestyle. But that's it, as far as evangelism goes -- by example only.

I don't feel at all obligated to increase the number of churchgoers or church members.

Rich,

You said, "But it seems to be semantic to say that what we really share is Christ." I could not disagree more. Either there is the incarnation or there is not. That is a key component to our theology. And, as you might guess, I lean pretty heavily on the incarnation. And I have always been uncomfortable with thinking of Jesus as an interesting guy with an interesting idea or six about God...When I was "unchurched" I never found that logic compelling...It was never enough to bring me into the church. Maybe that's just me. But there you go.

B'ham Rich,

The Pangalactic Gargleblaster is waiting for you on the counter here in Ouilmette!

Megan,

Interesting...I'll ponder that. Thanks.

I'm not surprised that you disagree. This is why theology has the potential to create as many problems as it solves. My main point is that one is in the process of becoming a Christian or anything else. Standing firm on the incarnation as core to coming in the door is silly. And, I think the incarnation means different things to different people. One can believe that Christ is God made man and still not be compelled to share Christ or God. It's too big a concept. But one can share Christian ideals and teachings and work on that suspension of belief to which I referred. Theology is a guess at what God intends, and while we can believe it all or some of it, I don't think it should be a barrier to participation in the life of a church. We grow into our faith, but church growth is about teaching, not knowing.

Megan, I think I understand your point of view. I don't want anyone foisting their church on me either, and I don't think I am suggesting that you have a responsibility for evangelism if you are not of that mind. But, I believe that living in the spirit of love and making an effort to be part of a church community can lead one to wanting to share that community with others. They can take it or not. The issue I have with evangelism as the world knows it is that it is cast in a superior light by so many. If it is so good, it can shine on its own. What I am considering is how to allow those that want to grow a church but who don't want to proselytize to achieve that goal.

Rich,

Just a quick distinction here...and I am not sure if its important or not. "Right belief" (whatever that is) is not a prerequisite for participation in the life of the community. I encounter a theological tradition and am in dialogue with it. One need not hold the full Chalcedonian line to be in a Baptist church as far as I am concerned. But neither should we just toss the theology to the "good idea" category. I don't mean to be flip.

What I wonder is where mystery, spirituality and encounter with the divine is for you. If there is no such thing, then I certainly understand your position. But I think the risk you run is crafting Christianity into the ultimate cult of personality...or simply a system of morality arguably no more or less valuable than another.

And that is hard to market.

Why is it important to "market" it?

Ah. The real question.

First, I don't think of myself as mainstream, which ought to comfort everyone. I am speaking about issues surrounding access and perception in the context of marketing. While my own beliefs can't help but color this, I really don't think that the issue changes relative to how people want to be approached about engagement with the liberal church.

I actually do believe that Christianity has some value beyond other faiths for me. But I also believe that it is such because it makes sense to me. I do not think it better or worse in any universal sense than other belief systems. I believe that God has no theology other than that which works to bring people closer to Him. So, mystery, spitrituality and encounter with the Divine are foreign concepts to me. God refuses to make Himself known to me in any way I can meaningfully comprehend. Yet I believe. I loathe the mystery. I can live with the concept that there is an inability to fully grasp God more than the possibility that God intends for us to be confused.

I'm glad the mystery thing works for you and others. Perhaps I will embrace it again someday. But I just don't think God really cares about right belief. He is satisfied with progress and with lives that are lived in the spirit of agape.

The thing that the mega churches have right is that people don't need the whole enchilada all at once. We can argue about how much is necessary to create a distinct value proposition/independent belief system/theology, but from the standpoint of attracting like minded people, we should start with accepting that a hallmark of liberal Christians is their uncertainty about the need for matters of doctrine and their reluctance to impose their beliefs on others. But, they want to share them. The only rational solution to this conundrum is to create access points that are related to actions driven by the belief system, without emphasizing the system itself.

So, I think you are mistaken. I think that it is much harder to market theology than morality. And, morality supported by theology works best. But like most art or architecture, you appreciate the beauty and the functionality long before you look at the structure.

And I do think that your encounter with faith and the need for structure is more unique than you think. Time will tell.

Megan: I really don't like the term, but it seems in other conversations, Rich and I have come to an agreement of some kind to use it...perhaps unintentionally.

Rich,

Lemme ponder. I have a difficulty with moralism. Fundamentalists are moralists. Moralism is social doctrine in the worst sense when we let it get out of control. "Bad" people are not allowed in church, you know. ;-) "You don't drink, don't smoke...What do you do?" Moralism can deny the journey that you and I both want to support.

I need to loan you a book...

Why is it that we can reclaim the word "evangelism" but not the word "moral"? I am not talking about some simplistic, rule based morality involving the judgment of others. You are right - if that's morality, who needs it. I'm talking about Great Commandment morality. Morality that is defined by placing others ahead of one's self, or at least even.

Megan, marketing is not a bad word just because it is associated with a church. It is a form of communication. It doesn't have to be the same as advertising cars. A church needs to be visible, but often times its members want to be overly modest. A balanced effort to be visible in order to get new people to stick a toe in the water is what I call marketing for churches. I guess it's more like PR work, but more sensitive still. My view is, as noted before, that we need to attract them, but only so they see what and who we are. If they don't want to be part of our fellowship, that's their decision. I won't try to convince them except by being true to my self and my beliefs.

Good question...

This is just something I am working through, Rich, but there is something willful about moralism...that is not the same as sharing something you love (evangelism). And I wonder if there is a difference between moralism and morality. I know, this is so very nitpicky, but I am struggling to get at something.

Evangelism is the introduction of someone to a distinct (particular? peculiar?) community. That community will have a certain moral framework...But even that can become too stratified. I dunno.

Moralism is often a system of absolutes. Pickles, if you will forgive the absurdity, are always evil. They are always on the outside. Moralism can become the tool for a purity system.

I know, so can evangelism...it can be misappropriated in that way. I would argue that the expansion of empire, inculturation, etc are not evangelism. They may foist Christianity onto other cultures, but that is not evangelism.

Asking the parents in Ghana to name their children with good "Christian" names like Robert is not evangelism. That is expansionism.

Evangelism may actually necessitate a downsizing of the church in the US. Heh.

An aside: I have no problem meeting people where they are. I just don't want to water down my theology to get there.

I really think we are getting caught up in the words. Moralism is not morality. There is nothing wrong with being moral, but there is a problem with defining morality in anything but the loosest terms. I believe that Christianity has the ability to do this, and its historical flaws can be linked to individuals believing that they knew the best way to codify and enforce a specific moral code. But we all know that morality is only absolute at its most basic level. Whether it is the abortion dialogue ot the death penalty or the global economy, there is a relativism that exists that we try to deny. We have to make choices. I think the beauty of Christianity at its purest level is that we have a framework for making those choices that is tempered by specific directions to not judge others for their choices and by the underlying knowledge that God understands hard choices.

Your definition of evangelism is sharing something you love. My perception of the general population's definition of evangelism is persuasion to accept something as truth. We may not be able to reclaim this word. The Moral Majority sees morals as absolute, creating your perception that this might be the only way. I believe that morality involves operating in a spirit of love, not in terms of categorizing this as right or wrong. There is good and there is evil and there is a range inbetween of things that are good in one context and bad in another. The best we can hope for in a theology is that it gives us the tools to recognize opportunities to be a force for good in the world.

I'm curious - is theology truth or a framework for belief to you? To me, it is like an onion. It is layered with varying understandings. It is not watering down your theology to only present the top layer most of the time. The challenge to your profession is creating an environment where others want to ask you to help them dig deeper. A personal faith that is forged out of a desire to know more is much more powerful that one that is dispensed in toto on an annual basis. Christian Education could flourish if we were to focus more on building curiosity than on establishing knowns.