Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Understood. I guess I don't see how this would be an unethical move by this woman that being said, I guess boundaries within a work environment should be observed.It was a card with a picture of sun with sunflowers, I was on the clock and working. I simply took it as a friendly gesture, thanked her for it, and continued working.
I was working. I don't have the luxury of being idle when I am working. As such I was unable to take a closer look until I had the free time to do so.
And as for my reasoning, I provided it in my post. As I mentioned in my post I was raised in a religious environment which actively taught evangelistic tactics, on how to establish relationships with people for the express purpose of trying to proselytize. This included things like "missionary dating", where you date someone with the intended purpose of trying to make them a convert. That means I am firmly aware of using interpersonal behavior with insincerity, as a gimmick and a tactic. Building a genuine relationship with another person and conversation--including evangelistic conversation, as part of that relationship isn't something I oppose; because it's organic and emerges out of sincerity. But I do not regard treating other people as statistics, numbers, or quotas to be an organic, genuine, and sincere way of engaging with other people. I also don't think it is especially Christian to regard my fellow human being as a quota to be conquered, rather than a human person to be loved.
The point I am raising is this: It seemed rather sneaky to deliver a hidden tract disguised as a card. I am not saying she had ill-intentions, but I think it perfectly valid to look at behavior and wonder about it. But given my own experiences and background, I feel confident that this probably was a "hand out these cards at work" tactic, the same as when I was in youth group and we were given tracts/cards/etc and try to find ways to hand them out in our school to fellow students. Perhaps I am entirely wrong, perhaps she specifically went and purchased this card, and specifically wanted me to have it built on a genuine friendly working relationship.
Further: I presented my experience here largely to discuss the larger question of ethics in the context of proselytizing. My experience here is merely the catalyst that wanted me to explore a larger ethical subject.
Perhaps my original post wasn't as clear as it could have been. In which case, I apologize.
-CryptoLutheran
What would you have preferred them to do? How do you see the charge to evangelize?
Aversion to proselytism seems to be a secular and rather anti-religious dogma. The reason someone within a secular culture would be averse is because they would be taught by secularism that proselytism involves insincerity and an objectification of persons. But anyone who is a Christian believes in evangelization and arguably proselytism, and there is no reason to believe that evangelization must be insincere or involve objectification. Many would take it as a compliment that someone cares enough about them to broach a subject they deem serious. That someone cares enough about you and the faith to take it all seriously.
(I am presuming that this person does not know that you are a Protestant Christian, and maybe that's part of the difficulty here.)
Understood. I guess I don't see how this would be an unethical move by this woman that being said, I guess boundaries within a work environment should be observed.
Thanks for sharing.
I am likewise someone who has been (you did not explicitly say this I guess, I apologize) harmed by excessive (I would even say brutal) proselytization.
I have a really difficult time with it and with wrestling over my own Christian beliefs in the context of evangelization.
Humm, this is turning into something quite different using this new dynamic. Male- female card passing can be taken as a romantic gesture. So am I to assume this was a female to male card exchange?Perhaps re-framing this in a different way could be helpful.
If a man at your work engaged in normal friendly work-place conversation, and over time you became comfortable and had a friendly workplace relationship with this person. But then, out of no where, they handed you a card, the outside of the card just something friendly, but inside something romantic and they have their phone number. Nothing prior indicating they had romantic interests in you, so this is sprung out of no where--would it be that crazy to wonder--too feel at least--like what if this whole time they were simply viewing you as a romantic or sexual target, not as simply a casual workplace friend. I mean there are all kinds of possibilities right.
Perhaps you'd be flattered, I don't know you or how your mind works. But I think it'd be perfectly valid for someone to wonder, "Was this the point the whole time?"
Or if that isn't an analogy you can relate to. Replace that analogy with one in which someone is friendly with you, and then tries to sell you something, or tries to get you into their Multi-Level Marketing scheme.
-CryptoLutheran
Your whole post attests to the fact that you find the proselytism objectionable and unsettling.In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.
Okay, but the underlying question asks why you are assuming bad faith in your coworker, and whether you have sufficient grounds.But I can speak to my own experiences in growing up within a Fundamentalist culture. I do not base the sense of insincerity and objectification on "secularism"; but on my own personal experiences of my own religious upbringing. Missionary dating, insincere friendships with the goal to "win" someone over, finding sneaky ways to hijack conversations, etc--these were actively taught and encouraged. Usually with a heavy-handed guilt-tripping; literally telling kids that if their friends die and go to hell, those friends will be in hell screaming, "Why didn't you try harder?" thereby making kids culpable for kids going to hell for not being successful in evangelism. That is my background.
Humm, this is turning into something quite different using this new dynamic. Male- female card passing can be taken as a romantic gesture. So am I to assume this was a female to male card exchange?
No intention of derailing.
Your whole post attests to the fact that you find the proselytism objectionable and unsettling.
Okay, but the underlying question asks why you are assuming bad faith in your coworker, and whether you have sufficient grounds.
For example, you claim that if someone tries to give someone salvation then their friendship is "insincere." That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think the reason you wanted atheists to comment is because you share their premise, namely that what is being offered is not in fact salvation. You have a soteriological difference with "fundamentalists" and you therefore deem their efforts at proselytism insincere. Yet I don't see very good grounds for your claims.
Friendship and proselytism are not inherently at odds. It doesn't matter what someone is trying to proselytize towards. Sincerity can be assumed as long as they really believe that their group that they want you to join is good.
I don't think fundamentalists are insincere. I think they have a (mildly) mistaken soteriology. Yet whether your coworker is a fundamentalist at all remains to be seen.
The subject at hand in the post I quoted was not proselytism in and of itself, but rather the proselytism that you encountered at work. It's pretty clear that you found that proselytism objectionable and unsettling.Can you provide an example of where it looks like I find proselytism "objectionable and unsettling" in and of itself? Or are you perhaps reading something into my post that isn't there?
I think it might be precisely what the conversation hangs on. The relevance of this post would be hard to overestimate, even though it requires skimming over some in-house Catholic baseball.I think a valid argument can be made to distinguish evangelism from proselytizing, though that might be beyond this current conversation.
Okay, good, which is also to say that you not only do not find proselytism objectionable or unsettling; you are pro-proselytism.So for the sake of argument I'll treat these as largely synonymous. And to that end I will say, straightly and frankly, I not only don't find evangelism objectionable or unsettling; I am pro-evangelism.
It's very common, though. Many Lutherans nowadays see any effort to convert others as a kind of imposition, which is (again) downstream of our pluralistic culture.I'm a Lutheran. The term we, historically, used for ourselves was "Evangelical"; the Gospel and its preaching are central to core Lutheran religious identity. It would be bizarre for a Lutheran to have a problem with preaching the Gospel...
Again, the question has to do with whether you have sufficient grounds for your belief (or supposition) that your coworker was acting in bad faith ("insincerely"). Part of my edit:I have also been very clear that I make a distinction between bringing up religion (and by extension sharing the Gospel) within the context of a relationship (e.g. a workplace relationship, a friendship, etc) and purposefully building a relationship with someone with the goal to proselytize. Is this not a distinction which you make? It seems like a natural distinction to me.
Regarding this:We generally object to pyramid-scheme behavior because it is selfish: because someone is merely being used as a means to one's own personal end. But I don't see good reason to assume that this is what is happening in cases of proselytism.
Why do you want to make that distinction? Why is the one thing sincere and the other insincere?I have also been very clear that I make a distinction between bringing up religion (and by extension sharing the Gospel) within the context of a relationship (e.g. a workplace relationship, a friendship, etc) and purposefully building a relationship with someone with the goal to proselytize. Is this not a distinction which you make? It seems like a natural distinction to me.
The same point can be made regarding Ivereigh’s notion of “facilitation.” Ivereigh writes, “we facilitate . . . the encounter [with the Holy Spirit] whenever we listen respectfully to the heart of another who thinks very differently.” Insofar as respectful listening facilitates this encounter, listening becomes a tactic—a move one makes with some end or aim in mind. Certainly, respectful listening is also an end in itself: it conveys goodwill and kindness to the other, regardless of any other outcomes. But in the context of evangelization, respectful listening is also strategic insofar as it is trying to accomplish something. One can imagine, for example, a situation in which a would-be evangelizer senses that her friend is interested in the Gospel. Yet she also senses that her friend is not quite ready to articulate her interest. So, the evangelizer continues to listen. That choice is a matter of both kindness and design. Only our bad conscience about rhetoric makes us think that they are mutually exclusive.
-Toward a Rhetorical Crisis in the Catholic Church
In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.
But I have seen several posters in this thread nevertheless assume I was, which I consider rather curious.
What in my post indicates that I was disgusted?
-CryptoLutheran
I think the thing is that without knowing the targeted person, there feels like a certain amount of judgment involved as in "I am and you're not." It can come off like self-righteous condescension to someone who is already Christian.Being disgusted because a person tried to get someone saved, is disappointing to say the least.
I do not base the sense of insincerity and objectification on "secularism"; but on my own personal experiences of my own religious upbringing. Missionary dating, insincere friendships with the goal to "win" someone over, finding sneaky ways to hijack conversations, etc--these were actively taught and encouraged. Usually with a heavy-handed guilt-tripping; literally telling kids that if their friends die and go to hell, those friends will be in hell screaming, "Why didn't you try harder?" thereby making kids culpable for kids going to hell for not being successful in evangelism. That is my background.
Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.
But I have seen several posters in this thread nevertheless assume I was, which I consider rather curious.
What in my post indicates that I was disgusted?
-CryptoLutheran
And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.
Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:
If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."
If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.
Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.
Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1
I could have put this in a Christians-only section, but I wanted this open to non-Christians.
Somewhat recently I had an experience at my work; for context I work at a popular retail warehouse store, I don't work for them but I do work in that warehouse, along with vendors of other companies who operate in the same space. A lot of people from different companies all operate within the same space, and naturally we interact with one another on a regular basis. As such I've built up friendly relationships with a lot of people who I interact with regularly.
Over several months I have interacted with a certain individual, it's always casual always friendly, but they work for a different company than I do. However several weeks ago this individual gave me a card, it had a pretty picture of sunflowers on it, and I didn't think much of it, I smiled, thanked them, made a comment about needing more sunshine in my life, that sort of thing. I slipped the card away and didn't really take a look at it until after work. Well, it was a Gospel tract disguised as a card.
Receiving religious material isn't the weirdest thing that's happened to me at my job, but usually it's customers leaving things on a cart, or slipped between food items to be found by a random passerby.
But this particular experience gave me pause and a thought: Has this individual's actions and behavior toward me, their demeaner, their friendliness (etc) been part of an attempt at proselytizing. I mean, I'm a Christian and the card/tract was generically Christian enough that I have no idea what denomination they are part of. I wasn't offended obviously, but it led me to wonder to what degree their interactions with me came from sincere comradery, or whether it is a kind of "missionary" tactic.
I may not have thought this except that, growing up in a particular kind of Christian environment, missionary-friendship and missionary-relationships were considered a valid "tactic" at trying to make converts. So that background does mean that I am aware that this is something that exists. It's not part of my current religious practice, but it was in the background I was raised in.
And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.
As I was thinking about all of this again this evening, I wanted to open up this topic more broadly. Because I have a feeling many people--especially people outside of my religion--know exactly the feelings I felt, and I thought this could be a good topic of discussion. And ideally, a way for Christians like me to learn more, take feedback, and consider the ethics of religious outreach.
A secondary thought I had in all this: In some ways I feel like I would prefer a total stranger leaving a tract or pamphlet than someone who has been regularly interacting with me. There is a sense in which now I question and doubt the sincerity in friendliness of this person that I didn't before. And that's kind of an awful feeling to have. I'm not angry with them, or offended, but I now doubt their authenticity toward me. And I feel like this experience I had might provide me with a slight amount of insight and empathy with those who experience this more regularly.
-CryptoLutheran
ViaCrusis said "not offended in any way."Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).
"Whether from false motives or true" is pretty exhaustive of circumstances.Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...
The full quote:
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
This particular observation seems VERY particular to Paul's situation of being in chains.
I mean, 12 vrs later is....
"27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ."
Not sure how being insincere and selfish reflects that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?