The Golden Rule of Evangelizaton: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You
Bob Imbelli started a thread about the CDF dcoument on evangelization below. For all those who wish to discuss that document in a more focused manner, the thread is still there. But I want to propose a practical question, which may not interest him but does interest me, greatly. I should have opened another thread, earlier. But better late than never.
I propose that in deciding what forms of evangelization we as American Catholics should engage in, we ought to think carefully upon what forms of evanglization we are willing to tolerate ourselves.
What types of evangelization are you receptive to? Do you open the door to Jehovah’s Witnessesses? To Mormons (not running for president)? Do you take the time to talk to the street preachers who accost you with scripture in one hand? Do you smile and have coffee with your coworkers who want to tell you about their relationship with Jesus Christ their personal savior?
Or do you make excuses when they ask you to go to a church meeting for “seekers” with them? Do you suddenly remember a meeting, a prior commitment, or a pressing task? Do you listen to them, with your heart open, or do you listen out of politeness? If anything gets through to you , what does?
And what can we learn from your answers?
Who are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
No TOLERANCE,the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult because they try to cut you off from others who do not have the same beliefs, including family. Yes,you can ‘check out anytime you want but you can never leave’,because they can and will hold your family hostage.
This is probably what makes the Jehovah’s witnesses religion so controversial in that they: PROMISE YOU YOUR REWARD IN THE HERE AND NOW.
Like holding out the proverbial carrot to the donkey the watchtower promises it’s followers an impending new system paradise coming any minute you won’t grow old you won’t need to save for old age retirement.
The other religions have the good sense to promise you your reward AFTER YOU DIE and nobody has ever come back from the dead and sued for breach of promise.
When the watchtower is made to be held accountable for their false promises and defaults thay just go and disfellowship (kick out) those who dissent.Religions can get away with this any secular business that did this would get their leaders put in jail for fraud.The Watchtower religion has busted a million followers and there are lots of angry ex members who won’t go quietly.
It’s FRAUD for GOD
Thanks for letting me share this,Danny Haszard
It seems to me that:
1) a fundamental difficulty in evangelizing is how to respect a believer when we don’t respect his/her beliefs. Even assuming that we at least respect the sincerity of the other, how to be diplomatic when criticizing a belief which we consider false or pernicious or ridiculous?
2) a condition of dialogue must be an agreement that to say ‘you are mistaken’ should not be taken as an insult.
3) there can be no very wide generalizations about how to evangelize. What appeals to one repels another, what opens the mind of one closes the mind of another, and the strengths of one evangelizer are not the strengths of another.
4) evangelization is not necessarily speaking one-on-one. Artists, for instance, often make the teachings of Christ known in a most effective way without ever meeting those whom the art touches.
I should add that I liked the Jehovah’s Witnesses who used to wake me up early on Saturday mornings. (Sigh.) Their sincerity was very impressive. They left literature with me, which I read later, and I asked them to pray for me and said I would pray for them. Mercifully they didn’t seem to want to discuss things. I would find it difficult to talk about Scripture with them since I cannot always accept literal interpretations of it. Especially early on Saturday mornings.
I did not like the Hare Krishnas who live half a block from me, though they don’t bother people in the neighborhood anymore. One, an abbot, was even known to hit someone who didn’t want to talk to him. They seem to have learned a lot in the past thirty years, They don’t even wear their saffron robes in public anymore. The robes sort of became symbolic of pushy people.
What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing?
I think Mormons are cute, with their bikes.
I usually make some excuse with the others, and even send Mormons away fairly soon. After all, I’m already in communion with the Church in which subsists the fullness of the means of salvation.
But I try to be nice to them, too. Patient, kind, not rude or boastful. Etc. Enduring all things…
Anybody who comes to the door to sell me Jesus Christ like a Hoover vacuum cleaner gets the same brusque “no thanks” that the rest of the salesmen get.
These people do not care about you; they’re simply trying to fill some type of quota, trying to get the numbers up at their churches. You’re a notch in the holster, so to speak.
In the past couple of years, their tactics have changed; they’ve gone after my kid, trying to get him to VBS, which I do not bear with patience or kindness, to my shame.
I think Ann is exactly right to make a distinction between proselytizing and evangeling.
Four examples what I consider evangelical efforts, though I’m sure those “evangelizers” had no notion of what they were doing, and what they did was relatively mundane.
My friend Eleanor and teacher Mrs. Roberts, both now in heaven, were devout Catholics I knew as a Struggling Young Person. They were outgoing and bright, friendly and generous with lending me a wide variety of books (there was some Merton thrown in there, and a few issues of Commonweal) and providing a free lunch now and again. What they saw in me I will never know, but they certainly upped my opinion of the Church.
My “Aunt” Agnes was an Episcopalian. When Agnes was in the nursing home, deaf, complications from diabetes, and later cancer, you’d go to visit her and ask how she was, and she’d say, “I’m feeling fine. Now what about YOU?” If you brought her flowers, she’d say to her roommate, who had dementia, “Look what Jeanie brought us!” and she’d make me put those flowers where they could both enjoy them.
My dad has two friends, one a Methodist, one a Jew, and they have NEVER missed their appointed coffee days. When Dad is ambulatory, they take him out. When he’s not, they bring the coffee to him. If he’s in the hospital, they go there. Dad was supposed to have died six months ago, but those guys have helped keep him going. Sometimes just showing up on time can be an act of great love and comfort.
I am very naughty when people come knocking on my door to ask if I want to talk about Jesus and the Bible. I say with a big grin “Sure! Come on in.” It doesn’t take very long for them to figure out that a trap has been sprung. Sometimes it is easy, like the woman who asked me if I knew how many miles Jesus walked on the water. “Five,” she said. When I asked her to show me where this vital information could be found in scripture, she said it was in the book of John, somewhere. Then there was the poor woman who wanted to share the stages of Christian life with me. The second was achieving salvation by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. When she got to the fourth, growing in a Christian life, I interjected that doing that well surely did not much matter, as one was already saved. She said I was mistaken, but then did admit that one was just as saved if one did nothing to grow in Christian life as one who did everything to so grow, so long as both affirmed Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Sometimes I get rather short, like when two guys came to my door and asked whether or not I agreed that all sinners will burn in hell. While shutting the door, I commented that if that were the case, then all of us, including the two gentleman, would end up crispy critters.
I like Jean’s examples of evangelization. If we honor all people as if God is staring us in the face, then we will do alright. Maybe I should take this to heart the next time someone comes to my door with evangelical intentions.
Ah, Struggling Young People (your posts always make me want to post, Jean). I’ve often thought about evangelizing among my peer group (now the twenty-somethings). The problem I’ve most often faced when considering this is a lack of vocabulary. Even among my Catholic-schooled counterparts, there’s a real inability to explain the faith in a way that doesn’t sound crazy or scripted. People have a hard time hearing religious messages for what they are, and I haven’t been able – or heard someone else – come up with a new way to make people hear the “life saving” “salvific” “good news”.
Perhaps best way to evangelize is to exemplify the good news and use words only when necessary or when invited I think St. Francis took some such position.
I guess I am more crotchety than Joe. I have invited people in, but they rarely accept, and often regret it. I remember years ago, a mormon pair came to the door. The woman was off on a preset spiel about the voice of God on earth today, while the man and I went off in a new direction, giving thanks for our faith that God would speak to us in such a way. The disagreement about WHO is a modern prophet was too much for her, and she left disgruntled I think. But he and I shared a gift from God, despite some kinks in it, and I think we were both evangelized by it.
I think that is the real strength of this recent note. (Thank you for bringing it to my attention!) We evangelize so we can give glory to God for the works being done in every place and time, not just so what we already know should be accepted by others. We evangelize to be evangelized by whatever good and holy works God has done in the hearts of others.
Jean has said it beautifully for all of us. I have always been impressed by the Scripture “some have entertained angels unaware.” Jesus has immense appeal to all when not filtered through monarchical empire builders. That appeal is not watered down. All readily see that Jesus does not tolerate, hate, lack of charity and genorosity.
As Cathy points out, our history of evangelizing is checkered. So much so that that famous native Indian refused baptism from such a God who would have such followers. True apologetics is not just in the 13th chapter of Corinthians in a corollary way. It is basically and essentially there.
Dear David,
Some in my parish are discussing the Lord’s Prayer right now. I have been surprised at what touches people. “Our” says right off the bat we do not pray alone but with Christ and with all his family. “Thy” indicates we are addressing God — it is not just “Hallowed be God’s name” but a personal address like “How beautiful you are” said to one’s wife.
The words are there, if you were ever taught anything about pronouns, (It does not appear to have been too popular a topic in the schools around here??) But we take them for granted.
Why do you pray the Our Father?
Nearly all those adults who are getting baptized and confirmed at Easter Vigil are being initiated because they’re getting married. That’s the most common example of the rule of thumb I use: Americans’ hearts are closed to evangelization – except when they are in a personal crisis or are facing what corporate HR departments call a “life change” – they’re getting married / having a baby / burying a loved one etc. Then their hearts are very open to invitations. And we as the church have to be ready to invite at those moments.
Also: If we’re getting our children baptized and dragging them to church, we’re evangelizing. Once they’re in the building, it’s up to the priest, the deacon, the cantor, etc. to help them see they have a reason for staying.
To inject a bit of levity: I guarantee it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8
The other side of the Golden Rule: what I’d like done unto me: If God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, not to condemn the world, but to save it; and if that Son died for me a sinner and was raised from the dead and sent his Spirit to enable people to share in God’s own life, I would surely like someone to tell me about it. How sad to go through life not knowing this! If this is true, that is
I think this thread is confusing evangelization with salesmanship of religion or proselytism. In order for something to be evangelization it has to be good news, by definition, not a sell-job of something untrue or unworthy.
There is no separating the concept of evangelization from the content of the message. I would agree that there are sometimes terrible blunders in the earnest attempts made to share one’s religious convictions. But at the same time I don’t think that means that every such attempt can or should be called “evangelization.”
I was one of those “cute Mormons” on a bike. That comment made me smile. In contrast to one person’s comments…we did care about the people that we met. It’s quite simple…I was extremely grateful for things the that I felt like I had been blessed with–and I felt that those blessings and the peace I had in my life came from being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and living by its teachings. Therefore I simply wanted to give other people a chance to have that happiness and peace in their lives. Pretty simple isn’t it?
It wasn’t about numbers and I wasn’t a little automaton whose strings were being pulled by the old men in Salt Lake City…I was 19 year old kid that recognized that I had been blessed with something an I simply wanted to share it.
Regarding going door-to-door, the practice is universally recognized in the LDS Church as the worst possible method of finding people who may be interested. It’s on the bottom of the list–and I can attest that it’s not very effective. I can also say that Mormon missionaries are aware that they may be interrupting something that the homeowner is doing–that’s why we try to be as polite as possible. It so happened that my mission was in Finland–a beautiful country that I learned to love–but extremely difficult for finding people who are interested (all of Europe, in fact, is difficult). Because Finland has such a dearth of people who are interested in religion we were often relegated to the door-to-approach–and I can attest of the ineffectiveness of the method. Most people were fairly polite when they told us they weren’t interested, but some were not. But, that’s what you get when you knock on someone’s door and attempt to talk about something as personal (and possibly as devisive) as religion.
Given my experience I’m always polite to those that try to share their religion or faith with me. Politeness is an ingrained principal in the Mormon “culture” (I’m speaking in general–you’ll certainly find some rude Mormons), so I have to say that the yelling “you’re going to hell” approach of some street preachers comes across as offensive…..
Derek, apologies to your 19-year-old Mormon self. I’m sure you were and are sincere, and most of the Mormons who’ve come to my door or whom I’ve worked have been good people, often with a sense of humor that puts those of us outside the LDS Church at ease.
More annoying than the door-to-door proselytizers, who usually go away when asked to, are those in one’s own family who are ashamed of one’s lack of faith or church attendance and pressure one to come to Mass or church with them if only to show their pastor that they’re making a good effort in trying to bring one back to the fold.
While I think efforts like Welcome Home Sunday are nice, our local priest’s reaction at the opening of Mass was to say, hands on hips, “Well, where IS everybody?”
Never mind that we’d had an ice storm the day before. Reactions like this simply make those who ARE there feel like slackers … and resent their family members who decline to come even more.
As Rita and others before her have noted, there is a difference between evangelization–which is Good News–and proselytizing, which is salesmanship, threats or pressure.
In my view, you yourself can be the Good News in living color by example. To paraphrase St. Francis, elsewhere invoked on this thread, if necessary, use words.
Does anyone have a source where this saying attributed to St. Francis can be found? I wonder if it’s not like the prayer attributed to him, “Make me a channel of your peace,” which certainly isn’t from Francis.
My mother is now turning over in her grave. She hated it when people questioned whether George Washington cut down that cherry tree.
Fr. Jack Wintz, OFM, had a piece on the “use words if necessary” quote. Sounds like it reflects an attitude St. Francis conveyed, though calling it even a paraphrase would be stretching it.
Here ya go.
http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj092302.asp#F2
Another hagiographical legend shot through the heart. How sad.
Bob shut his thread down below. It struck me, however, that the most likely group for Catholic evangelization is ex-Catholics–1/3 of the group. This guy seems to me to have the right approach. He seems pretty realistic, and he seems to me to take seriously the reasons why people aren’t Catholic any more (or yet). And He emphasizes love to the degree I think is necessary. I think his model seems promising for evangelization in general.
http://www.catholicvu.com/inactive%20catholics.htm
In today’s NYT—John Allen’s column on the Pope.
“Part of the problem is that so far, this cerebral pope has a track record of blurring such compelling arguments during his biggest turns on stage. When he visited Auschwitz in May 2006, for example, he offended some Jews by asserting that the Nazis tried to destroy Christianity too. Four months later, he set off a firestorm among Muslims with a lecture at the University of Regensburg by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Muhammad brought “things only evil and inhuman,” such as “his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” And in Brazil last May, the pope incensed indigenous people in Latin America by suggesting that Christianity was not imposed on them.”
I have to say, I’m utterly flummoxed by Rita Ferrone’s insistence that the behavior of the Church in evangelizing the natives is irrelevant to evangelization today in light of 1) the Pope’s statement about that while visiting Latin America; and 2) the firestorm this produced; and 3) its continuing place in the conversation, as evidenced by the Allen column.
How many Catholics do you know who, in the midst of a conversation with someone, will simply ask: “Have you thought about becoming a Catholic?” Father C. John McCloskey does this all the time, but in my experience he is an utter rarity among Catholics today. In a book he co-authored with Russell Shaw, Good News, Bad News: Evangelization, Conversion and the Crisis of Faith, they write: “The main purpose of Vatican Council II convoked by Blessed John XXIII … was supposed to be nothing else but to equip the Church to bring the truths of the Church to bring the truths of the Catholic faith more effectively before the world. It was even thought at the time of the Council — naively, as it turned out — that the Catholic Church was on the verge of gaining large numbers of new adherents through the embrace of ecumenism. What instead became a virtual new era of dissent from, and disaffection with, Catholic truth was not at all foreseen. Sober experience has taught us since then, however, that evangelization is more likely to be brought about — even in the expanding new Churches in Africa and Asia — by the very old tried and true method of individual conversion than by any mass adherence to or amalgamation with the Church on the part of those outside her visible boundaries.” (See “The place of conversion in evangelization,” Musings, Nov. 8, 2007)
Cathleen Kaveny, in that case, what would you suggest is required by the virtue of compassion for others in light of Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak’s remark above about the “other side of the Golden Rule”? My parents were Protestant missionaries in China before the Communist Revolution. Urbane readers of the New York Times, that parish newsletter of self-congratulatory northeastern liberal Enlightenment, sometimes used to ask them: “What business is it of yours going over there telling those people of a vastly superior civilization how they ought to live?” Their response was always along the lines that they were nothing more than poor beggers telling what were in fact other beggars where to find bread — or, less crassly, citing the old Protestant hymn, that they were simply there to “tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.”
Diplomacy doesn’t consist in being inoffensive. Neither does evangelization.
I can’t imagine that teachers, either, are always intensely careful not to offend. At least I doubt that this would be the most important criterion in their minds as they speak. That’s not the thrust of what they are about. In fact, what they have to say will usually challenge their hearers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25sXOvChoaQ
Your parents, Pertinacious Papist, sound like wonderful people –and model Christians —-and model evangelists. They are doing unto others in the right way. Unfortunately, their Christlike practice –and attitude–wasn’t pervasive among those settling Central and Latin America and converting the native populations. And wounds are still sensitive.
“What instead became a virtual new era of dissent from, and disaffection with, Catholic truth was not at all foreseen.”
I don’t believe it. I suspect Catholic leaders were well aware of the decline on the European continent, largely because the Church proved to be powerless and ineffective in the upheavals of war. You also can’t discount the effect of Humanae Vitae. The simple analysis is usually misleading on complex questions of sociology, culture, and religion.
My Baptist mother used to get JW visitors. Once she said she was in the middle of vacuuming, but if they wanted to pray a decade of the rosary with her, she’d take a break. They declined and never came back.
I’m happy to converse with proselytizers, though my wife usually intercepts them and sends them away.
I’m amused at many evangelicals who strike me as being evangelization wussies for targeting semi-active Christians and youth. I’d like to see how they fare in Finland.
I have heard the story about St. Francis from more than one priest, all of whom I judged credible, but none gave a source. Some of the best things people have said, actually they have not said, someone else has. J.C. had a note on this in a recent TLS. Mark Twain in particular is supposed to have said many thing that he did not. I suspect the same is true of Diogenes–I mean the real Diogenes.
In any case I think St. Francis, or whoever it was, had a point. So, I think, did Matteo Ricci, who now seem at last to have been vindicated, as has, one gathers, Antonio Rosmini-Serbati. But I digress.
<>
Hi, Cathleen, I do think Fr. McKee is wise. However … the interview doesn’t really directly touch on the reason that I’ve assumed many Catholics leave the church: they remarry after divorce, and for whatever reason choose not to pursue an annulment. (Or, in some cases, their petition for annulment is denied).
That’s not to say that Fr. McKee is wrong in emphasizing love and listening. Many times, it’s the love and listening skills of the person preparing the petition for annulment that are critical.
Had I been sitting beside Fr. McKee at the interview, I would have also interjected a few words about the positive nature of the sacrament of reconciliation for those who have drifted away and wish to come back. If we think we can leave the church for twenty years, and then just return without reconciling and all that it implies about reflection, self-examination, penitence, contrition, reparation, etc., then we’re not really on the right path. Or so it seems to me.
Btw, in the previous post, I tried to cut and paste the URL to the interview with Fr. McKee, but it came out like this: . Is there something more I should have done?
I received my Baptist nephew’s CHRISTmas (his emphasis) card today.
Hearing from my nephew and his wife usually means they want money, and his card was no exception. Enclosed was a form letter, carefully worded by his church leaders, asking for help raising $2,400 so they can go to LaCarpia, Nicaragua, to work on “building projects, children’s day camp, and a show for the community at the end of the week.”
In the past several years, most of his mission trips have been to Catholic countries–Mexico, Haiti, the D.R., etc. The tactic is to oil up the local population with help for a week. Missionaries are taught how to strike up conversations with the local people as they work, conversations that will prepare them for the final “show,” a carefully scripted program which introduces people to fundamentalism and attempts to gently seduce people away from the Catholic Church.
This is no ecumenical effort, I assure you.
Usually this whole rigmarole angers me for any number of reasons–the fact that Catholics in the U.S. are buddying up to fundamentalists while fundamentalists seek to erode the Church abroad; the fact that my nephew has the gall to continue to send me bids for money to undermine the Church; the fact that the implication of the mission is that people who are already Christians need to be converted to a “better” denomination.
This year, however, I feel more chastened than angry.
It is very easy for me to judge my nephew and his wife, to criticize their beliefs, their church and their motivations. But if my nephew and his wife win “converts” to the Baptist Church away from Catholicism, will it be their fault? Or will it be mine because I’ve spent a lot of time on this thread griping about evangelization and proselytization instead of doing something constructive.
This year, I would like to respond to my nephew that his story about the need for help in Nicaragua has touched me, and that I have made a contribution to a Catholic effort in the region. Somebody point me and my checkbook in the right direction, please. You may respond offline so as not to imply that Commonweal is endorsing a particular effort.
It happens that my parish has partnered with a Nicaraguan parish that consists of over 40 small villages. We are sponsoring the building of a school, vehicles, and with any luck a radio station.
The vast area is staffed by two priests. Before we were involved they had no vehicles at all.
I’ll send the info to Jean, in case that is what she has in mind; anyone else, just let me know at hymnwriter@gmail.com and I’ll reply with the information.
I’d be happy to mention the information in a comment if this becomes desirable.
Dear Jean,
Have you invited your “Baptist nephew” to become Catholic?
Jim, I have a hard enough time keeping myself Catholic and would make an extremely poor spokesperson.
My husband, however, who leads RCIA, asked if our nephew and his then-future wife might want to explore Catholicism through a local Inquirers program. The future wife was raised Catholic, but her parents left the church when she was young to divorce and remarry other people.
They rejected this out of hand and have made their contempt for the Church (and us) clear since then.
Dear Jean,
There are two important points in your reply. First, your humility about your faith is characteristic of why Catholics do not evangelize. We are not knowledgeable enough, faithful enough, trained enough… Fr Imbelli offered the only solution to that: ““Go and Tell What You Hear and See” Don’t go and tell what you haven’t seen. Inviting others to Catholicism is inviting them to share with you, and it starts when we share ourselves — uncertain, even troubled, but still coming together for the sake of God. (pardon me for slipping into descriptions of myself and friends; I am not trying to project attitudes or words unto you.)
The second point bothers me. I want to say this in an almost flippant way. I will try to resist that, and just suggest that you print a copy of the doctrinal note on evangelization and send it to your Baptist nephew. It sounds like he could use something that describes evangelization in terms of respecting others, loving and learning from them. At worst, you will be giving them the kind of sales spiel that you hate. At best, you might be seen as taking an interest in his committment to sharing the gospel. You might even be able to discuss the role of love in discussing religion with others.