Evangelism by Humiliation
I saw this post the other day, and after watching the video it links to, a couple things come to mind. First, I ask myself who the intended audience is. It seems to me that though this video will possibly be watched by a relative handful of non-Christians, it will most likely be watched by Christians. Second, I ask myself what the intended message of the video is. It seems a major purpose of this video is to make Christians feel good about themselves at the expense of others. That being said, it seems that this video does have evangelistic intentions as well. If I were a non-Christian watching this video, what would it tell me about Christians?
Honestly, I think if I were a non-Christian seeing this, I would feel that a lot of my suspicions and stereotypes about Christians were confirmed. The way the big guy in the video, who is presented as a Christian, seems to enjoy ridiculing the other guy, the message that “Christians are right and everyone else is wrong and stupid” comes across, and even the way the non-Christian guy is portrayed as a punk all send a strong message that Christians care more about being and proving themselves right than they actually care about me.
Now, I honestly don’t think the people who produced this video meant to send this message. I think they truly felt they were doing a service. I think they had good intentions. Unfortunately, we are rarely judged only by our intentions. I think many Christians feel that they are losing influence in society, and they are at a point of desperation to get it back. Unfortunately, I feel that responses in this vein cause more harm than good.
Personally, I think the theme that comes across loudest to me in things like this is that of Christians thanking God we aren’t like those sinners and “evilotionists”. It is 180-degrees opposite from the attitude of humility we are called to live in. It seems that in our zeal to win an argument, we often forget to put others first. In Luke 14, Jesus says the following while eating at the house of a Pharisee (which makes the whole thing all the more socially awkward):
When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
If we truly want to reach others, it seems that we need to come to a place where we would rather be humiliated than than humiliate our supposed enemies. The way of Christ always involves making ourselves smaller than others, not by ridiculing them or besting them in an argument. This is something I constantly need to remind myself of.
 p.s. - I’m not posting this to get into a long, protracted debate over competing claims of the mechanisms and duration of the Creation story. It is only meant as a commentary on the general tone and style of the video itself.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
ok - fine Phil … can we at least debate that Humiliation is Calvinistic?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’ll comment more later — right now, I’m getting over the whiplash of the topic going from evolution to religion, with absolutely no segue. The weirdest part is that the sudden lurch was made by the evil non-Christian.
Oh, and the little pot-shot aside against Catholicism absolutely rocked. Talk about your crowbars.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“swallow your pride, loose your doubt, and unharden your heart”
How very Arminian!
February 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
That video sucked. It was like saying “let’s parade out all of the Creationist propaganda and common arguments and make the punk rocker anti-socialite look stupid”. Then, we’ll stuff Jesus in at the end to make sure everyone watching knows we care.
That’s like me calling Iggy a ’semi-pelagian emergenteese monkey lover’ (LOL) and then telling him that Jesus loves him in my sign-out.
This coming from the anti-’macro’ evolution guy that I am.
I think you’re right Phil, this is just a “Hey us Christians are way better than them bad evolution dudes, thank God” film for Christian who might be a little too insecure.
I don’t need dumb propaganda like videos to have faith that God created everything. I get that faith from a relationship with Jesus.
Just my thoughts..
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
The things that frustrate me most about those videos is the strawmen they put up. Most scientists who believe in evolution don’t term things as “Micro” and “Macro” evolution. I get the feeling that the videos are for Christians and lay-people.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Joe,
You are getting to know me pretty good… but don’t let out all me secrets OK?
= )
iggy
February 4th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Yeah, hence the quotations around “macro”.
Then again, whether we use ‘macro’, ‘common descent’, or whatever other myriad of terms out there than are used, most people can figure out what’s being talked about.
And it still requires empirical evidence, which to be fair to the stupid video, was the eventual point they tried to get to. Straw man or not.
But Dave, be careful what you imply. I know many scientists who use the terms ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ when speaking of NDE or any variant thereof.
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Dude Iggy…
You know I’d never tell anyone that you’re best friends with Brian Mclaren.
Oops.
I blew it… Almost as bad as the Patriots did last night in that cursed Super Bowl.
Jesus disfavors cheaters, I guess. =(
But Jesus….the rest of the teams cheat the same way!! YOU KNOW THEY DOOOOO….-cry-
Joe
February 4th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
yeah… I have NO CLUE how they moved so fast from EVILution to religion. It was so out of place, and so awkward. Oh well.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I understand. I find that when a scientist uses those terms they use it in the context of their belieifs, but Christians often don’t.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I watched the video and I didn’t find it particularly offensive. Part of the problem we have is that most Christians are terribly afraid to actually state what they believe and can’t defend why they believe it. Thus, they are bullied into a position where ‘faith in Scripture’ is a mere crutch or ‘God said it’ is not sufficient. Then what does the Christian do? The probelm is that Christians have been given no other weapon against the philosophies of this present darkness except the Word of God. And if Christians continue to allow people to undermine its veracity, and if Christians continue to undermine its veracity, then what else will we have to combat the empty way of life handed down to us by pagan philosophers? We do not follow or preach ‘cleverly invented stories’ Peter wrote, but historical events by the Living God.
How else is the Christian supposed to win people except through the Word of God? And the Word of God, gentlemen, is not always very nice–at all.
I have had these conversations quite a lot at my blog and what I have found is that being nice only goes so far with the unbeliever because at every single turn they are waiting to trip you up, catch you in an ‘I have faith’ statement, or throw you to the wolves of ‘evidence’ and ’scientific method’ (you know, ‘You can’t prove creation because the scientific method doesn’t work on faith, but evolution has real, hard-core evidence.’) Nice is fine, but not sufficient when the stakes are as high as they are.
What is needed are people who understand Scripture and are willing to defend it–regardless of how offensive it might be to people. We may not like the caricatures, but the overall content is unobjectionable (in the video, that is).
I’m not sure that being nice as opposed to being honest is going to help people understand the Gospel. Peter wasn’t nice when he preached in Acts: “You killed him by hanging Him on a tree” and suchlike. Paul said something like, “I wish you would just cut it off…” Jesus called the Pharisees “white washed tombs…” James said “you can’t be friends with the world and with God.” John called unbelievers “antichrists.” None of these are nice, but they are true. Just something to think about, but at what point does nice become pedantic and meaningless when people do not understand the full weight of the consequences of hell and sin?
Do you think, I am asking here, that Christians are always supposed to sit back and take the flak of the unbelieving world and never point out what is, in their myopia, unclear to them: That without Christ they are lost beyond all hope. Is there, I’m asking here, never a time when Christian ought to go on the offensive, preaching the whole counsel and offense of the Cross, and attack these cultural, philosophical, and satanic abberations and lies?
I’m asking, so be gentle. There are a lot of Christians who are serious believers in evolution, but ask yourself this question (which is not beside the point): If Genesis 1-2 are not telling us historical truth, then how can we possibly accept anything else the Bible has to say? If God didn’t create, why should he redeem? If he didn’t created, how can He redeem? If He didn’t create the first world, where is our hope that He will create the second world?
Thanks for your time friends. I’m glad you posted this, but this time I think I have to disagree.
jerry
ps–sorry if there are any tipoes.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hey Jerry, not to distract from the rest of what you wrote, as it was pretty thoughtful…
But I find:
To be a false representation of the Christian Evolutionary position. Keep in mind I am not in that school of thought at all, but it’s been my experience that Christians who believe in evolution very much DO believe God created everything, just in a process that conforms to 21st century majority scientific thought. They don’t disbelieve that “In the beginning, God created…” in any way, shape, or form, they just believe He created in a way consistent with what they feel modern science has ‘evidence’ for.
Now, I completely disagree with the NDE (Neo Darwinian Evolution) Theory, but with that said, Christian’s who believe God used Evolution, still believe God created and ‘dun it’.
I’m just trying to keep it honest, let’s not build straw-men.
Joe
February 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Jerry,
Thanks for the comment.
I actually think that apologetics done well is a very good tool for Christians to have. I think people like Ravi Zacharias, Norm Geisler, Lee Strobel, and C.S. Lewis to name a few have done a great service to Christians in helping them see some of the philosophical and scientific underpinnings that relate Scripture. I just don’t put videos like this in the same league.
The main vibe I got from this video was that it was pretty much demeaning anyone who disagreed with its premise. Just the fact that they called it “evilution” speaks volumes. Really, if you were a person who made their living studying science, how would respond to something like this? I don’t think that person would be offended as much as they would just blow it off as another lame attempt by fundamentalists to villify something they don’t understand.
I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where we are allowed to treat others disrespectfully. Jesus specifically told us to go out of way to bless our enemies. Though our natural reaction is to make fun of that which we don’t like, I think we need to be careful not to. I think there are ways to engage in a debate of ideas while still being respectful. A lot of the stuff marketed as apologetics nowadays doesn’t do that though.
One other thing I would say is that we need to always look at the context in which Jesus, Peter, and others were confronting people in the New Testament. Jesus was confronting the Pharisees and other religious leader for their spiritual blindness. They should have known better. Peter was confronting devout Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom had traveled to the town for the feast. Jews in that days generally had most if not all of the Scripture memorized. They should have recognized Jesus for who He is earlier, but didn’t so they needed someone being harsh with them. A similar argument can be made with Paul and the churches he started. His rebukes were borne out of his close relationships with the people there.
I guess what I’m getting at is that in the cases of these rebukes, it was a situation somewhat like in a family. If you have a family member go off and do something stupid, you would take drastic measures to reach them. Sometimes you have to be harsh with them. You wouldn’t be as harsh with someone you had just met. I think the same type of principle applies in how we deal with these types of issues.
One last thing, I would say, is this. I think that tying an issue like evolution into an evangelistic message is just stupid. What is it hoping to accomplish? A majority of Americans still don’t believe in evolution, and for those that do, this video wouldn’t change anything. Also, most people who believe in evolution aren’t atheists. Of course there are a few Richard Dawkins and Sam Harrises around, but they are still the exception.
In my time being involved in campus ministry, I’ve seen a lot of students walk away from their church background. I don’t know that any of those students would point to evolution or the influence of “secular humanism” as their reason for leaving. Most of them will tell you they still believe in God. A lot of them just feel their churches aren’t where God can be found. Yet these churches seem willing to blame everyone else but themselves. As long as we look outward instead of at ourselves for people to blame, I believe that young people will continue to leave our churches.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Phil,
Thanks for the reply–oh, you too Joe! Funny thing is, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything either of you said. I guess perhaps it is perspective, but that might be entirely too narrow of a way to define where we disagree. I’m not a campus minister, but a local church preacher. At my blog, I don’t often disagree with Christians, but with atheists, Darwinists, and the like. I get very few Christians visiting who defend evolution.
Phil, I can honestly say that there is no one more interested in context than I am which is why I didn’t just throw those quotations of Scripture in for something to do. Regardless of what the context, those were the words that were used. It is very hard to make ‘emasculate yourselves’ mean anything other than what it means regardless of the context. And you are right! Jesus was confronting Pharisees who should have known better; thus, how much more impressive his use of ‘white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones’?
To be sure, I don’t think we should be disrespectful. But I do think there is a vast difference between being disrespectful for the sake of disrespect and pointing out the obvious truth of a person’s situation which, again, they miss due to their own myopia. I have a part time job at a local Jr High (6-8). Every day I see the results of secular humanism and Darwinism in full force. Granted those things may not be pinpointed as the reason for the loss of or disregard or rejection of faith in Christ and trust in His word, but I wonder how many times a person can hear ‘you are the product of apes’ or ‘chance’ or ‘you are just another cog in a mindless machine that didn’t have you in mind and doesn’t give a damn about you’ before they give up all hope?
It may not be a pinpoint moment, but I guarantee you that those philosophies plant seeds that you–as a campus minister–had to contend with at one time or another. And if you didn’t, I would be very, very surprised.
Joe, I don’t think it is a strawman what I wrote. The very premise of evolution is godless–just ask Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens, or Stephen Gould (RIP) or any of a thousand other scientists who buy into it. They will tell you flat out that evolution cannot involve God, and in fact does not. I understand what you are saying perfectly, but from what those Darwinists who visit my blog tell me, God involved Evolution is nonsense. This isn’t the place or the thread to debate it, but there is an insidious evil in Darwinian philosophy and Evolutionary Biology. Its purpose is to unseat the authority of God and deny His power. I respectfully disagree that those questions are beside the point.
I think this is a question, actually, about Scripture and its sufficiency. The Lord God could have through His Spirit inspired Moses to start the book of Genesis at any of a million or three or four different places. Yet the very place He chose for him to begin our canonical Scripture is the very place that is most often under attack by unbelievers. Why do you think that is so? I think once you understand where I’m at on that very point, you will understand why in my judgment the church has been duped and that Christians who hold hands with evolution have made a very serious error in judgment.
Thanks for the time again friends. This is a heady discussion we won’t conclude here, but I am glad, nonetheless, that we can have it in a tone of respect and maturity. I will be away to Seminary beginning tomorrow (CCU) so I won’t get to do any replying, but I will be most happy to read your thoughts should you have any more.
your friend and brother in Christ,
jerry
ps–Joe, there’s also that small problem of there being no real credible evidence for Darwinian evolution. I don’t buy into Intelligent Design as a mechanism for creation (after all, I am a Genesis literalist), but folks like William Dembski have done a fantastic job demonstrating the utter incompetence of Darwins theory; and more. But I digress. I still love you guys even if we happen to disagree on this point. I do hope, though, at some point, you can come to the conclusion that this point matters from the Scripture’s point of view.
This link: http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/nt-wright-can-a-scientist-believe-in-the-resurrection-2/
has a list of links to an essay (actually a speech) by NT Wright about whether or not a scientist can believe in the Resurrection. I haven’t read it all, but even here I would submit that the question isn’t ‘can’ a scientist believe, but ‘will’ he believe. Perhaps you will find the essay helpful or not even if it is a bit beside the point.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Phil,
I find that, especially for myself growing up in Boston Public Schools, that the logical conclusion of the humanism and plain evolution taught to me for 12 years was Atheism, or at best, some weird mushy form of Christian agnosticism. In reality, I slipped easily from the latter to the former, and then was eventually saved years later. So, basically what I’m saying is I think it does play a factor in people walking away from the church. In fact, one girl I work with, when speaking to her about the Bible and Jesus, as the subjects came up in normal conversation, she said to me “well, they got evolution now, and all that stuff, so we don’t need God, evolution explains everything.”
If that’s how the kids are receiving the message, then that needs to be addressed, regardless of whether evolution is true or not, many in my generation and the generations to come see it as an ‘either/or’. At least in my experience, I find.
Jerry,
Thanks for your kind response and words. I am in agreement with you in terms of a ‘literal’ Genesis. And I agree that NDE is inconsistent with Scripture itself, and that many see NDE as the destruction and antithesis of Christianity.
This is a very true statement. I agree with it. And using Scriptural gymnastics and just-so pseudo scientific stories to explain away possible contradictions, just won’t cut it with most people. At least not where I’m from.
I also agree that I find no credible evidence for the modern theory of common descent of all species by “Evolution”. With that said, I would not be crushed, or found unbelieving, or abandon my faith if someone one day did unequivicably prove NDE to be true, empirically, as my faith comes from a relationship with Jesus, THE Word, and not abstract words or truth. Whatever is true is true because Jesus is Truth. I hope you understand me here. Because of my personal experience with the Truth, and the saving relationship with Jesus, and the Kingdom of God, I cannot abandon Him, regardless– even if Aliens descended on NYC and blew it up and declared themselves gods.
What I quoted from you was a straw man because you said up the premise that Christians who believe in evolution, in whatever form of it’s myriad of contradicting styles, means they don’t believe that God created. Or that Evolution implies no God. While I think this is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to, and many have, ie, “Evolution = No God”, it’s not the end all be all, or the only conclusion. What I’m saying is many Christians find Evolution to give even MORE Glory to God. It might be a false premise, MIGHT (I don’t know everything), but it certainly doesn’t make those Christians disbelieve God created. That’s how what you said was at best, a poor generalization, and at worst, a straw man. I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to keep the level of offense down (ie, I think, and correct me if I am wrong Phil, that your wife is an Evolutionary Biologist, but also a Christian.)
Thanks for the good convo guys,
Joe
February 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Jerry,
I’m not saying we can’t be direct and honest with people. I’ve dealt with some non-Christians that wouldn’t let you be nice to them. Sometimes we have to be harsh. I just think there’s a difference between harsh and ridiculing.
Also, I do don’t deny that there are some atheists who use evolution as a tool to promote an agenda. I’ve seen it. I just think that most people I’ve run into who even might accept evolution, won’t buy Dawkins’ arguments. I think most people are still unwilling to accept that something can come from nothing apart from some divine being.
I’m at Penn State, and there are over 40,000 students on campus. There is an Atheist and Agnostics Clubs as well as a Skeptics Club, but I think their combined membership is less than 100 people. It was really kind of sad, they had a rally in the Fall, and it was like less than 30 people, I believe. Most people actually want something to believe in, I’ve found.
Joe,
Certainly some areas of the country are more secular than others, and I would think that Boston has more than it’s fair share of liberals. So I don’t doubt your story. I’m not saying that atheism doesn’t need to be dealt with, I just think Christians can do better than things like this video.
I would also say that I think in some ways the church has dug it’s own grave, so to speak, with some of these things. I think a lot of times we send the message to students that they can’t trust scientists or science teachers, and because of that, those people tell students they can’t trust the Church. It seems we put students in the place where they are forced to choose sides in what may be a false dichotomy.
What if a Christian student feels called to be a doctor? He will inevitably learn a lot about evolutionary theory along the way. What if some of it make sense to him, and he realizes that the Church wasn’t being honest with him? It seems that the Church sends messages that make it hard for students to take science seriously and still be true their faith. The very thing that the Church did to try to protect that student ends up pushing him away.
I wouldn’t call my wife an Evolutionary Biologist. She is a microbiologist, but much of her work involves evolutionary theory on the molecular level. She not like a staunch supporter or anything, but she just is kind of pragmatic about it. She admits there are holes, but it’s not th things that Christians typically talk about. She really gets irritated at the stuff that Christians normally give as evidence against it because it’s pretty weak.
I did want to note that I agree with Dave with the whole micro and macro thing. The video differentiated between micro and macro evolution, but Christians are the only people I ever hear make that distinction. I’m sure an evolutionist would respond by asking where micro stops and macro begins. All macroevolution would be is a collection of micro changes over a long period of time.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Phil, I think if you read my OPs again, you’ll see we pretty much agree bout all that jazz.
This isn’t actually a true statement. I’ll show everyone why “micro” and “macro” are terrible, almost non-scientific terms to use to describe what’s going on. When people refer to ‘micro evolution’ they actually mean natural selection causing variation within a certain type of animal, like large cats (lions, tigers, etc), or the difference between wolves and chihuahas. These changes, a form of evolution, are changes where enviromental pressures (etc) ’select’ genetic information to keep, and to ‘lose’, based on survivability of the species. Since it’s ’selecting’ genetic information out of a gene pool, it’s not netting a gain of new genetic information, rather, you’re making the species more specific to the enviroment. Like with the gene for blue eyes and blonde hair in humans, it’s a loss of genetic information (or potentiality, if you will). This is the direct opposite of “macro” evolution, in which those who use this terms really mean non living molecules changing in to human beings over long periods of time. I think the best way I can explain what’s meant by ‘micro’ is that…over time…you could breed a wolf in to a beagle, but never beagles back in to wolves. It’s not evolution in the ‘fish were my ancestors’ sense, it’s evolution in the adaptability within the type of animal based on prexisting genetic information sense. LOL.
I think this is what the video tried to explain. I would much rather never use the terms ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ because, as you can see, they are very misleading. IE, if micro is true, then if there is enough time, won’t macro happen?
But that’s a false dichotomy between the two, as they aren’t the same thing at all.
Anyways, I know you didn’t want to get in to all of that, so suffice to say, I’ll drop it.
I agree with you that I think the church is misleading about this topic, sometimes. And I also agree, we can do way better than this video did.
Peace,
Joe
February 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hey Phil and Jerry,
I gotta get some sleep for work tomorrow. If you wana talk more, you can always shoot me an email. I swear I don’t bite =)
Joe
February 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I am CCU just now. Thanks for the thoughts. I will catch up with you fellas later. Now I must spend some time writing and reading. God bless in all you do for Jesus. He is grand and great!
Your friend,
Jerry via Blackberry