A Witty Title.

I cannot express enough how much I agree with you. I have seen so many christians give christianity a bad name in the manner of their evangelism.

Then again, it can be extremely difficult to discuss christianity with non-christian friends, especially considering the generally negative outlook people have regarding christianity. For example, when I was doing philosophy in 1st year uni, it was deemed perfectly acceptable to spend an entire two hour tute class bad-mouthing christianity in general and christians in the group specifically. If it had been any other religion, people would have kicked up a stink. But christianity? Bitch away!

I'm sorry but we've got to the point where so-called 'minority groups' have decided that they are within their rights to persecute the supposed 'majority'. Femi-nazis are a prime example of this. (And can I just point out that women make up more than 50% of the population of the world. Minority group?) And if anyone protests about it then they are obviously prejudiced against the 'lifestyle choice' of the individual in question. This is such bullshit. And it makes discussing such things with friends extremely intimidating because it could well cause all sorts of problems within the realtionship.

You have a real point here, though: Christianity demands an answer. There can be no fence-sitting. Either you are with God or against him. The faith is uncompromising in its high ideals and is therefore extremely threatening to those who can't cope with having their world view challenged or disagreed with. (I'm not saying that that is true of everyone who isn't a christian, just most people who find even the mention of the topic threatening enough to jump up and down on it, having a tantrum as they turn red in the face.) It's the "I'm right because I say I'm right and therefore you must be wrong' syndrome all over again. (So it's not just christians who do it.)

What happened to freedom of religion? This is one of the few 'freedoms' that is held to be constitutional in the US and in Australia. (No such thing as 'freedom of speech' out here, lads.) But apparently you are only you are only free to belive what you will if you aren't a christian.

So, in the end, the most we can do is pray for their souls and praise God for free will.
 

Aargh. Sorry,hon. I didn't mean to have a rant on your blog. *looks shamefaced*

I'll just go and rant on my own now... (Forgive me?)
 

Rant away. Thats how we get interesting discussions going. Just try to stay tactfull and on topic.

Personally Im right with you.
 

Hello Naranater... Let me try to respond here (after 11 pm, so bear with me)

Firstly, I didnt post it just before bed time, I posted it at 1 in the afternoon... 8-)

I firmly believe that christianity is entirely within the active acceptance camp. If you accept it, The first thing you have to accept is that you are sinfull as you said. For many non-christians, jsut accepting that is an incredibly active thing as it requires a shift in how they view and value themselves. Yes there are degrees, but even the most basic degree requires an active step. The difference in the degrees in only the size of the steps, not the direction their in.

Hope that made some sence.. its late.

Matt
 

Naranater: Allow me to clarify. I certainly feel that one is either with God or against him: if one does not accept Christ into your heart, then one is in a state of rebellion against God. Doesn't mean that one can't accept God at a later date or that one's rebellion will necessarily be permanent.

Otherwise I completely agree with you. I'm imperfect, wanna join my club? (I'm broken and we're having lunch tomorrow. Well, I said I'd remind you...)
 

As I didnt read the whole post by the other guy, I will just say what I think on what you have said.

As far as talking with people who are not Chriatian, if you tell them they need to straighten up and fly right then you are wasting their time. Good works dont get you to heaven.
What non-Christian people need is to trust God that they can be saved from their sins only in Jesus. The living out the life part is only in response to that.
Once you have accepted that the only way is to trust in Him, then you are called to live a life worthy of the gospel.
I think often people can think that by evangelising someone you are saying "I am good enough for God, but you arent" it is really important to emphasise the grace of God, that no-one is good enough for Him. All I have done is accepted the free gift of God. By telling someone of the good news that they too can be saved, I want them to be saved too. How do I do that, well I tell them.
Of course the context of the telling is extremely important. If some joe off the street calls me up and talks of 'great holiday deals' I am just not interested because of a whole pile of things. If a friend recommends something, I will look into it properly.
Maybe not exactly the same with evangelism, but you get the idea. I hope...
 

Im not usually one to censor, but I have particular issues with people useing my blog to advertise their own.

I dont mind if you put a link to your blog in, but if thats your sole purpose for posting, go do it somewhere else. I struggled with this a bit, but based on the fact that hes done it to other blogs before and that the entire contents of his comment was "Hmm, that was a very interesting post." and a link to his blog, Im going to remove it.

If you want to comment on the content feel free, but I cant help but feel your just here to boost your own google search ratings and readership.
 

Stoobie: "What non-Christian people need is to trust God that they can be saved from their sins only in Jesus."

Please note that it's absolute, blanket statements like this that offend a great many people who have had evangelism attempts made on them. You could at least have the tact to phrase it like it's not an absolute fact, but rather is what you believe. Don't get me wrong - you should believe what you believe and have absolute faith in it - but you should also accept that it is a /belief/, not a fact. Christians may see Christianity as the only way to redemption, but who are they to say that to somebody who believes otherwise? Who are they to tell somebody else that they /need/ redemption in the first place?

This is the problem with many active evangelists. They treat their beliefs as fact, and assume (or give the impression of assuming) that those who are not to be Christian are so out of ignorance, or foolishness, or simply not having had "God's message" spread to them, or so forth. Never the consideration that maybe a non-christian is that way because they /choose/ not to be, and have their own beliefs, and don't give two shits about "God's message" because they don't believe it's /true/. Never an acceptance of a non-christian's choice to live their life how they wish. If the non-christian listens to them, gives reasonable consideration to what they're saying, and still decides to be non-christian, the attitude is one of "okay, later then". Evangelism doesn't know how to take "no" for an answer - it views those who choose another path as being misguided, or not ready, or whatever. It treats it like it's only a matter of time until the person "comes around" or "matures" or "is called", or some such thing. And /that/ is offensive.

Christianity is supposed to involve tolerance an understanding, but that's not the impression given by a religion which believes that only its way is right. It's not enough for somebody to be a good person - they have to be a /Christian/ good person, or they're automatically not good enough.

In short, perhaps non-christians would be more tolerant of evangelism - and christians in general - if it at least treated /their/ beliefs with a bit of respect.

Note, I say this with the greatest respect to my own Christian friends, who have always maintained their own beliefs, but also accepted mine. You are a credit to your faith.
 

...And just to bring this back to the core point, Chin, I think you're half right in your assessment. It's not about whether or not accepting evangelism requires personal action; after all, if you are prejudiced against gay people, accepting gays requires definitive change on your part, also. The difference is that Christianity lies down a very simple line: you are Christian, or you are wrong. You are Christian, or you are against God. While acceptance of homosexuality asks you to say "gay people can be right as well", Christianity requires you to say "nothing is right except Christianity". One asks you to widen your viewpoint and tolerate something you previously didn't; the other asks you to effectively narrow it.

In short, asking people to tolerate gays (or any other comparable group/demographic) is more like asking people to /tolerate/ christians, not /be/ christians. Evangelism could be compared to gay rights if accepting gay rights meant you fuck guys and try to "convert" all your straight friends. I think /that/ is the difference here.
 

I was gonna respond to this.. but when I came to do so I realised I didnt need to. You said everythig I wanted to say.

well put. So ill just post "Me too"
 

I agree with you fox, but also disagree. I believe what I believe from the bible is fact. If someone does not agree then I accept that they can believe whatever they want to. After all, it's their life. Just because they believe something different though doesnt mean I am just going to give up on them though.
I think that there is a big difference between accepting someone's decision ('tolerating') and believing they are wrong. I accept peoples decisions and can still think they are wrong.
As for the only way to redemption. it's not that a Christian is say ing what they think. They are quoting the bible (well should be). Acts Chapter 4 vs 12 says "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
I think that there is a big problem in some churches that people want to water down the message and conform it to the post-modern society we live in.
It's not much fun telling people that they are wrong. If it was up to me I would adopt the fuzzy 'no-one is wrong' attitude but I am not God. Thank goodness.
I think it is only out of love that your Christian friends tell you the good news. If you are driving fast down a road and about to go over a blind crest and there was a sign saying that there was a hairpin turn after the crest and you should slow down, you dont say to the sign 'stupid sign, I will do whatever I want thankyou'. You thank the person that put the sign there that because of it you can navigate the road successfully. I believe it is the same with evangelism. Someone knows what happens to those who reject God and desperately wants you to believe. It's not to feel good about themselves, not to notch up 'conversions' it is only because they love you. If they didnt tell you, what sort of love is that?
Of course it is still your decision and whatever you decide is your choice. But people change their minds sometimes about stuff and that is why your Christian friends keep wanting to talk with you about things.
Happy to talk more.
 

naranater: Thank you. You seem to know /exactly/ what I'm talking about here, especially with your second paragraph.

Stoobie: You are taking the very standpoint which I am talking about. Saying things like "Someone knows what happens to those who reject God and desperately wants you to believe" only reinforces my point, because you /don't/ know what happens to those who reject God. /Nobody/ knows. You (they, we) only /believe/. Believe with absolute certainty, go ahead - but don't try to claim that your beliefs are fact.

You say: "As for the only way to redemption. it's not that a Christian is say ing what they think. They are quoting the bible (well should be). Acts Chapter 4 vs 12 says "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.""

First of all, you're misreading me - not once did I say that this is a Christian stating what they /think/, but rather what they /believe/. And that is the key here - you must understand that while you /believe/ completely in what the bible says, I do not - therefore, you cannot quote from the bible and expect me to give it any credence. You cannot expect others who do not share your faith to acknowledge it as fact. Not only does my point that Christian evangelists often treat their beliefs as fact still stand, but you have demonstrated it perfectly with this paragraph.

Further, comparing an evangelistic christian to a street sign in the manner that you do fails to be an appropriate analogy - after all, street signs are based in fact. It's not that the RTA (or equivalent roads authority) /believes/ that there is a hairpin bend there, and /believes/ that slowing down will have a significant impact on your chance to turn that corner safely. It is a /fact/ that there is a bend there, and it is a /fact/ that slowing down reduces the risk of an accident in that situation. Once again, you need to acknowledge that while /you/ believe in the teachings of the Christian Bible and God, such things are /not/ fact, but faith (not that I would imply for a moment that faith is a bad thing). Wanting to share that faith with a friend is admirable, but it is the attitude of "I'm not giving up on you" that offends many of us who choose a different path. It is possible that /we/ know the best course for our own lives, not you.

Addendum: Just to clarify, my christian friends have not made any attempts to evangelise me, thank goodness. At least, not my /current/ ones.
 

As a child, I was told that the Bible was wholly true and perfect.

Why?

Because the Bible said so.

Thanks to this moronclad logic, you could clearly use the Bible to convince a man that him not spanking his kids was wrong, or that drinking alcohol was sending you to hell.

Not to sound snarky, but there's a lot of good reasons to take the Bible as a more-than-mythical document. Let's not work with the stupid ones, and try and work with the agreed-upon subject?
 

More power to the Fox.
 

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I think that if I thought that there was a reasonable chance that God didnt exist (that it wasnt fact)then I wouldnt be a Christian. I am not sure about the distinction between believing with absoloute certainty and saying it is fact. I would have thought they were the same thing.
I am not a Christian because I am having an each-way bet. I firmly believe as fact. If I believed as a point of view, then I would have no reason to try to evangelise people.

It's not about my opinion of what you should do with your life or who you have faith in. Faith has lost alot of it's meaning these days. If you asked someone what they thought faith was, there answer would probably be "Believing in something that you have no proof exists". I dont think this is correct (nor does the bible). Faith is almost interchangable with the word trust.
I know you may be unhappy with me quoting the bible but as I believe it as fact i will quote from Romans Chapter 1.
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
The only opinion that matters is God's.

I dont know Talen, if you had read the bible you would know that Jesus turned water into wine (clearly saying it is ok to drink alcohol - just not get drunk). It also says that you should discipline your children Hebrews 12:7-11.
I firmly agree that if you dont belive that the bible is true then you shouldnt use it to tell you what to do. But I think that is like saying to the sign. 'No, there is no hairpin turn after this crest' and not slow down at all.

I think alot of the discussion is do you believe in absoloute truth? Is there one absoloute out there or not. Many people in todays culture believe that what is truth for me is right and what is truth for you is also right, even if they completely contradict each other. In that society of understanding, someone coming along and telling people they are wrong is offensive. How dare anyone tell anyone else they are wrong. But if there is absoloute truth out there and I am wrong, I would like to be told so I can at least consider the possibility. That is part of why as a Christian I am completely happy to hear anyone's point of view on what they believe and study other religions. If I wasnt certain of what I believed I would lock myself in a box (metaphorically) and any time someone talked to me about a different world view I would end the conversation before they could say anything.

Sorry that's long. I am happy to keep discussing :).
 

Quick distiction between fact and believing with absolute certainty, a hairpin bend is a physical, tangible thing that can be measured and analysed. God is not.

I think we need to look at facts as things that can (as nearly as is possible) be seen as globally true. That a rabbit has fur, or that tar is black, are facts.

That Jesus came to earth is arguably true, there is certainly a lot of evidence that lends credence to the theory, but there is no physical proof, so we can't call it a fact, there just isn't enough support for the theory.

I agree that for someone who does believe in something with absolute conviction, that it's hard not to consider it a fact, but for the sake of our more sensitive fellows, it is better for us to approach them with a less absolute ultimatum. While some people seem to respond well to the rotisserie style evangalism (Turn or Burn), many more are put off by it.

In the end, whether we call it "Truth" or "Fact" or not, isn't really the issue, it's the how we present these things to people that matter. If we say, "This is the way, or you will burn" people will be put off, if way say, "This is what I believe is the way" then they're more likely to listen to what we have to say, and give it serious thought, at a later stage they can discover that part of that way is the burning-if-not-followed aspect, but hopefully by then Jesus will already have a foothold into their hearts and minds and they'll be better prepared to accept that as a package deal.

As a parallel, throughout our lives eduaction is a path of partial "truth". We get spoonfed the basics, and once we can cope with that the give us something more difficult and complex.. Imagine trying to start out in year 6 doing 3rd year University Math? No way, we wouldn't try to push that on someone, they couldn't deal with it and may forever be convinced that Math is just far to difficult. In things like Chemistry, we get told that things are a certain way, then further down the track it's a matter of, "Well, yes, we did say that it was like this, but it's actually a lot more complicated, it just makes it easier to learn it that way first, then get into the more complicated stuff later."

I don't see why our "education" in christianity needs to be much different from this. We don't start off in Sunday school saying "Love God or Burn in Hell!". We don't go into deep explanations of Sin. God's Love and the parables are common starting points, things that leave a warm fuzzy feeling that makes children keen to know more, or that make "good stories".

When Jesus taught it was rare that it was with harsh damning terms of Law. More often he used stories to open peoples eyes to what he was getting at, and follow through with a "so it is with God" kind of ending.

Brutal Rotisserie Evangalism? Boo!
Gentle Gradual Evangalism? Yay!

Each person has their whole life to learn that Christianity is "right", there's plenty of time to show them the parts that may be particularly relavent to their current situation, or even to confront them with things that they may not be entirely ready to deal with, but there certainly isn't a need to be forceful with what we want to say to them, and insisting on the Rightousness and Truth of what we say can come across as being forceful regardless of how we may have ment it.
 

Well, here's a can of worms.

I'd just like to say that I don't think it matters whether or not the bible is fact. It is an object of faith and if you have faith in it then you must take what it says as truth. But you can't use the bible as the ultimate proof when you are dealing with people who don't view it that way. Which has more or less been said. In the end, I agree with Psi: gentle is the way to go. Bullying or scaring people never works and just gives the faith a bad name.
 

"This is the way, or you will burn"
In my own life I have always tried to find my own way, to make my own discissions, to take actions that conform to my own personal morality & principals. If this is going to condem me to eternity in hell, then so be it. If that is the price that must be paid for what i believe in, then I will gladly pay it.
 

Stephen: Thanks for that, it shows quite nicely the kind of response that non-christians will often present when confronted with some kind of statement like that. On the other hand, if people were to gently discuss the relative moral correctness of your actions in a far less confronting way they /may/ have a chance to impact on your "own personal morality", perhaps? Not to say they'll turn you into a christian or anything, just that if someone was to try they'd be more likely to make a difference in your life by coming at it from a less forceful direction.

As for gladly paying that price, you can only get away with that kind of comment if you sincerly don't believe in hell, which I guess is part of the point. ;)
 

Yeah dudes,
Just to clarify, I dont actually like the turn or burn approach either. It reeks of lack of love and arrogance. Although this is not what it is actually about, the way the hearer hears what you are saying IS important and so you need to talk with them on their terms. If they dont want to talk about it at all, then respect that and of course continue as friends, if they are happy to discuss things, then do that, if they are happy to listen to what you have to say and then decide that's cool too.
I agree with Laurel-Li and I hope that people understood a previous comment of mine to be that if you are talking with someone who does not believe the bible then you cant expect them to read it the way a Christian would.
Like Matts post was on about, you need to show tact and be sensitive to where people are at. If my previous comments were insensitive then I apologise for that. I was more commenting on the post, than having a discussion with people specifically.
Thankfully it is God who changes hearts and not our feeble attempts at talking to people.
As for Psi's comment about certainty, there is heaps of historical proof. Hundreds of eye witnesses, and people who wrote it down at the time. How do you know what happened to any people at the time? People wrote it down. The trouble is today that there are no pillars of fire or smoke to point at and say "Look God exists".
Hebrews 11 verse 1+2 says: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
Can you be 'sure and certain' about something you say you have 'no proof' for? I reckon there is proof. Proof in the events recorded in the bible and proof in the creation. Take a look around at this awesome world. Is it not massive proof of a creator who creates things that have order?
 

Stoobie, you say:

"I think I understand what you are trying to say. I think that if I thought that there was a reasonable chance that God didnt exist (that it wasnt fact)then I wouldnt be a Christian. I am not sure about the distinction between believing with absoloute certainty and saying it is fact. I would have thought they were the same thing.
I am not a Christian because I am having an each-way bet. I firmly believe as fact. If I believed as a point of view, then I would have no reason to try to evangelise people."

Obviously this is true. I wan't saying otherwise; the point is that you cannot use "I believe it is fact" to prove to others that it /is/ fact. It doesn't /matter/ how strongly you believe it, it remains a belief rather than a fact. You cannot use the bible to prove its own value to somebody who does not /already/ believe in the value of the bible; it just doesn't work. There are many good reasons that a non-christian might choose to believe what the bible says, but "because the bible says it is right" is not one of them.

As Psi said, "a hairpin bend is a physical, tangible thing that can be measured and analysed. God is not." That is still the key issue here. You need to have faith, but you also need to present your religion as a possibility, a belief, a point of view. If you present your religion like it is fact, rather than offering it to the person and letting them make up their own mind, you're just going to offend people.

However, Psi also said: "On the other hand, if people were to gently discuss the relative moral correctness of your actions in a far less confronting way they /may/ have a chance to impact on your "own personal morality", perhaps?"

This I want to make a note on because of the implications. To whit, christianity (or converting to it) is not always about moral correctness; indeed, in Steve's own case, I have never known him to do something which was morally inocrrect. I just think it's worth substituting "the relative moral correctness of your actions" with "your religious beliefs" (once again, issue of good person versus christian good person, and so forth).
 

Stoobie: Let me retract my statement re no proof. Not sure what posessed me to make such a claim. I'm quite aware there is proof, at least for a large part of it. There certainly is enough proof to convince most interested parties that there was indeed a person who acted and lived in the way Jesus is portrayed to have done in the Bible, there are also good parallels between many biblical statements and other historical documents. What's sadly lacking in terms of proof is the divine link.
There is as much proof of Jesus performing miracles as there is of Rasputen doing similar things. Which is to say, what was written by people at the time, who happened to see what was done or who were told about it be someone who claimed to. Unfortunatly we can't check the credability of our witnesses, so it wouldn't really hold up in any serious investigation.

Fox: Substituation duely noted and accepted. I took to the Steve's use of the phrase "personal morality" and responded on that, if we were purely basing things on morals, then I'd have to see I've never know Steve to deviate from Good Christian Morality. ;)
 

Well at least I got a reaction out of people. Mat, I do apologise, the previous post was a something I have been trying to get out of my system for a while and ultimately this wasn't the best place for it (maybe I really should get my own blog).

There is however something I would like to say regarding the current topic. I don’t disagree with Christians, what you believe is ultimately your own business, I do however disagree with the concepts that underline evangelism.

Disagreement 1: Evangelism seems to be founded on the concept that the world would be a better place if everybody were a Christian. I simply can’t believe that, variety is one of the most wonderful aspects of humanity, variety between cultures, between nations, between races, between individuals, between religions. Without that variety you would be draining much of the light out of the world.

Disagreement 2: Following on from the first disagreement is that the basis for evangelism (as mentioned above) is the first step on a slippery slope. You can start with “it would be best if everybody were Christian”, but then you might start to modify it, “everybody should be Christian, in fact, everybody should be an Anglican (or other subgroup) Christian, no, better yet, they should have /my/ particular understanding of the bible, and should drink the same beverages as me, and watch only the same programs, and…” Like I said, slippery slope.

Disagreement 3: I said initially that ‘what you believe is ultimately your own business’ and I believe that, however it is completely contrary to evangelism. A person’s spirituality and religion is a very intimate and personal thing, but evangelism says it is in fact public property and that Christians should make other people’s spirituality and religion their business (and indeed make their own spirituality and religion other people’s business).

Now having said all that I would like to temper it with a few things, firstly, as I understand it, there is a difference between ‘Evangelism’ and discussing religion with your friends with the hope that they will see things your way (after all, we all hope our friends will agree with us when we discuss anything with them). I don’t want to discourage people from discussing their spirituality and religion with each other, even if there is no conversion involved people can still learn a great deal from one another’s religious views (which is what we are doing here isn’t it?). Lastly, I could have it wrong, I may have misunderstood what underlies evangelism, I may be being paranoid, maybe I just don’t understand the situation properly, this post was not meant to end discussion but rather to put forth my own limited views on the subject. I really hope for responses, particularly those that may help me better understand the whole matter.
 

I dont want peole to be Christians so that they world would be a better place. Although Christians are called to live good lives they still stuff up heaps and are forgiven sinners. There is no magical thing that happens to you that stops you doing anything bad when you become a Christian.
I would love the world to be full of Christians so that I wouldnt have to worry about my friends and family who reject God.
 

"There is a difference between ‘Evangelism’ and discussing religion with your friends with the hope that they will see things your way"

I think there are a lot of other things that go on under the banner of 'Evangelism', but that discussing religion with your friends is certainly a part of that.

The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word εὐάγγελος ("eu-angelos"), meaning bringer of good news, and the bible calls upon us to spread the 'good news', and probably more explicitly calls upon us to Evangelise (References anyone?).. So it's really part of what christians believe, part of the deal is telling/showing other people all about it, there's no question that it should be done, but we often have trouble with the how (Try watching some of the sunday morning Evangelist TV.. *shudder*) But I digress..

I've got to disagree that christians think the world would be a better place if everyone was christian. The general motivator is that we have some pretty nasty beliefs about what happens after death to those who aren't christians, and don't want those we care about (and we are called on to love everyone) to suffer what we believe they will.

If (for some crazy reason) you completely believed that anyone driving down a particular road would guarentee that their car would be jacked, and they'd be horribly beaten and hospitalised, wouldn't you want to warn your friends about it to make sure it didn't happen to them?

As to the slippery slope, yes.. There is a danger there, each denomination (and personal interpretation) has different views on many things, and for many of them you aren't saved unless you do it their way.

I personally feel that to the larger extent they go to far, but then I'm a very liberal (I think that's the one I want..) christian as people may have gathered from other things I've said here. I try to take christianity in it's simplest (some would argue easist) form. For me that makes most sense, for others.. Well I guess there are many who would say I'm still going to hell (and others who just wish I would).

And finally, the matter of who's business it is.. Well it's no more their business what you eat, or who you sleep with, how much excercise you get.. Or any number of other things that are part of someones life.. But still, if we care about someone, we may be express a little concern when all they eat is large helpings of deep fried, battered mars bars, we could be excused if we tried to explain to them the benifets of a healthy diet. Any time we see people we care about doing things that we see as "bad", whether it's physical or spiritual, it's part of our role as their friends to talk to them about it.

And as I said earlier, christians are called upon to love everyone, so we have to care about you all! (So no more eating deep fried battered mars bars, any of you!)
 

I agree with everybody! (well Steve, Stoobie and Psi, in the last three posts, to at least some extent.)

Steve: Believe me, hon, I completely understand your concerns. There are so many things about the concept of evangelism that sticks in the craw of the world which make discussing it very difficult. So, here's my point of view on the matter. Bear in mind that a lot of christians disagree with me, occassionally with good reason, and that this is only my point of view or approach.

As christians, we are called to tell others about God, about Christ, about salvation. I can't at the moment think of any bible passages that actually say why we should (help, anyone?) but here is what I think is the basic logic behind it:

1. God is good and perfect in every way.
2. He created us perfect - He saw that we were good - and gave us a choice whether or not to respect him or to go our own way (free will, without which we cannot love him and love is what He wants - I will explain this if people would like to know)
3. When we chose to rebel against Him (thus choosing death over life), He sacrificed Himself to save us, to give us a new chance at salvation every moment during our lives.

(This is a very basic rundown of christian belief.)

4. So, those of us who have accepted this view of the world and His salvation look at those people we care about (as Psi said, this should be everyone) who haven't accepted Him and think, "Dagnabit, they are all going to die! We must do something!" (As Psi said, taking care of those you love includes expressing concern over things that do that you view as hazardous to their health.)
5. On top of that, God has told us to do so and part of being a christian is being called upon to obey God, both because He is God and because we love Him.

However, while we are all called upon to spread God's word, the bible also states that only some people are born with the ability to evangelise or the role of evangelist. (This is a side issue, really at fits with the apparent view, these days, that if you aren't in ministry, then you aren't a christian. Which is really beside the point. I digress.)

So, where does this leave us?

My feelings on the matter is that I suck at evangelism. I am happy to answer any questions that come my way, and to talk to people about my faith but I can't walk up to people in the street and ask if they've heard the Good News. That said, I feel very strongly that evangelism needs to be dealt with delicately, with respect for God and the people involved. ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul. This is the great and first commandment and the second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself. Upon these two hang all the law and the prophets.")

Respect for God: poor evangelism gives christianity a bad name. (Hey, we're back to Matt's original post!) Attempting to bully people into christianity (what Psi termed "rotisserie-style" evangelism) makes God look bad if it doesn't work, and makes for christians with unbiblical points of view if it does. It isn't up to us to make people into christians, it's up to God. We are just helping along the way. And I really dislike the approach that says "as long as we get them into the church, we can sort any problems out later," mainly because they never do get sorted out.

Respect for others: dealing gently with the beliefs of others is important. ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") If you want people to have respect for you and your faith, you need to have respect for them and their beliefs too. Too many evangelising christians forget this, and i can understand why. But that doesn't make it the right approach. Deal with people the way you would want them to deal with you in the same situation.

So, given this definition of evangelism, talking to one's friends comes under the same banner and needs to be dealt with in the same loving manner. And in the end, there is no point in arguing with someone who is not a position to accept what you have to say. Which brings us to the topic of...well...silent evangelism. James says: "Show me your faith without works,and I will show you my faith by what I do." Actions speak louder than words and James indicates that one's actions should reveal one's faith. My non-christian friends all know that I am a christian and, since I do not feel that any of them are in a position to heed me in discussion about religion (not, I hasten to add, a negative reflection on you guys, you are free to believe what you will, this is simply my perception of the position - if you disagree, then tell me and we can talk to your heart's content!), the most that I can do is exhibit my faith in my daily life. Not that I always succeed, but I do my best, with God's help. Again, this is a matter of having respect for God (and not trying to bully my friends into believing what I believe) and for my friends (who hold different beliefs, which is their choice and their God-given right.)

Evangelism does not, however, set out to make everyone to same. God created the variety found amongst people when he gave us free will and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to change that. (After all, He's perfect, He doesn't make mistakes.) If the whole world became christian, we would all still be unique, each of us different, with our own points of view, our own foibles and brilliance, our own likes and dislikes. God doesn't aim to make us all the same (however much the state does, sorry, my problem, I'll deal with it...;)). In fact, he doesn't aim to make us anything: once again, He has given us free will, the ability and the right to choose. Would the world be a better place if we were all christians? I suppose it's possible. But, as long as we are sinful and imperfect, I rather doubt it.

That said, Steve also has a valid point here. Too many christians tend to take the route of "my way is the only way to heaven". And that indicates a major flaw in the way they are viewing christianity. There is only one route to heaven or salvation and that is Christ. Only accepting Christ's sacrifice and allowing Him to intercede on your behalf will gain anyone salvation. I cannot emphasise this enough: Christ is the only road to salvation. Anyone who tells you differently is in the process of losing their way. Thus, it is not God or evangelism or christianity which is creating that problem, but individual christians (heh heh, and free will!). Individual christians who (like all of us, I must add) are not perfect, are sinful and very capable of taking the easy way out. (Again, something I will explain if people want to know.)

Similarly, on the topic of the personal nature of spirituality, I would agree with Steve that it doesn't preclude speaking about it with the people you care about, basically for the afore mentioned reasons (see all that long way up the top of this post).

Oh, and I just wanted to add, just because I'm called upon to love everyone, doesn't lessen the enormous affection I have for you all. You guys are the coolest! On top of that, if anyone does want to talk about my beliefs (whether out of curiosity or for the sake of genuine consideration), I am always willing to talk about it without bludgeoning you. You too have free will. (Sorry to keep going on about it: it's of major importance in christianity and is much overlooked!)

I love you all.
 

Egad, I shouldn't be pulling this up again. But I really did mean to respond - I just got tied up in a bunch of other stuff. I'm not just doing this for kicks, Matt, I promise ^^;

psi, you say:

"And finally, the matter of who's business it is.. Well it's no more their business what you eat, or who you sleep with, how much excercise you get.. Or any number of other things that are part of someones life.. But still, if we care about someone, we may be express a little concern when all they eat is large helpings of deep fried, battered mars bars, we could be excused if we tried to explain to them the benifets of a healthy diet. Any time we see people we care about doing things that we see as "bad", whether it's physical or spiritual, it's part of our role as their friends to talk to them about it."

Thank you. Believe it or not, I have been wracking my brains trying to come up with a good metaphor for this whole situation ever since the winding road thing came up, and I think you just gave me the perfect idea. See, it happened that while I was living at home, my Mum exppressed the concern that leaving my computer on overnight in my room wasn't healthy (yeah, my Mum's a bit of a hippie). When you made the above comparison, you reminded me of that - just like Christians (simplifiedly) believe without doubt in the word of God/the bible, Libby truly believed that what I was doing was bad for my health - however, just as Christians do not have proof (just faith, which is respectable but not proof) that their religion is right, my mum didn't have any evidence to back up her beliefs. For all that she believed and was trying to help me, I didn't agree with her belief, so I made my own decision.

To me, that's the importance of presenting christianity as an option, particularly to your friends. Obviously it's your (and I use the collective "you" here, not referring to psi or anybody else personally) duty as a friend to express concern over something that you believe will hurt a friend - but it's also your duty as a friend to accept their choice on the matter. That's not to say that I don't think the friend should consider your point of view - they should do so for your sake, if nothing else - but if you can't ultimately trust your friend to make their own choice, then you're not a friend. You're more like a babysitter.