Tags
Avatar, Avatar the movie, Christians, emergent, evangelism, God, Israel, Jake Sully, Jesus, Peter Rollins, Rob Bell, Samir Selmanovic, The Great Commission, the other
A while back I dated a girl who asked me: why do you like me? I said: I like you for your potential. Now, I still can’t believe she went ahead and married me.
Although evangelism is a term associated with the evangelicalism (for apparent reasons), anyone who’s set to follow in the way of Jesus will inevitably be involved in evangelism. It is what has been called The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-47 and Acts 1:8). The question is: what does it mean to do evangelism?
The recent movie Avatar is a great illustration of the way Christians have been relating to the rest of the world and a lesson for how they should relate. Truth is, we don’t relate to the “other” from a position of equality. For a long, long time Christians have made evangelism a one way street. They have projected themselves to be God’s brokers to the world. Their role was to bring God to places where there is no God. This approach has put Christians in a posture of superiority. If Christians built relationships with the other (be it a next door neighbor or someone from a far off country) it was ONLY to learn their ways SO AS TO get a chance and a way to present their God. Like Jake Sully, they learn about the other in a dry, mechanic way without any emotional investment. There is an AGENDA! There is no real interest in the other. As Samir Selmanovic writes in “It’s really all about God”, we don’t think the other has anything of value to offer us about God. We certainly don’t need them; they are the ones who after all need us. If we care, we care for “their potential”.
This is where the Avatar movie is a great metaphor for what evangelism could and should become. Although Jake Sully entered Na’vi world initially with an agenda in mind, he got to appreciate their way of life, its beauty so much so that he wanted to become part of it. Eventually his presence there really helped to save them. But it was something organic. Evangelism should really be a two way street. We enter the other’s world because we really believe we are enriched by the interaction and our horizons will be enlarged. We celebrate good and beauty where ever we find it[1]. Jesus often found faith outside his religious tribe (Israel, God’s people) and praised it (Matthew 8:10; 15:28 to name a few instances). Actually, when we read the Gospels we often find Jesus saddened by the lack of faith among his own people and followers.
We don’t bring God to the other, but find God in the other.
We get to know them so as to see what God has been doing before we got there and learn alongside. Evangelism is a take and give, give and take love relationship. We initiate the relationship because we believe there is a treasure in the other we can’t miss. We evangelize “to be evangelized.”[2] If we’ve got something of value to offer (which we certainly do) it should become evident in the relationship. But let’s not force it upon the other but let it grow naturally. Just as we find value in the other, the other will find value in us. This kind of evangelism the world needs desperately. We need it desperately.
___________________
[1] Rob Bell: “Velvet Elvis”
Theology Gym 
Hi Florin, thanks for tackling this topic of Christian spiritual colonialism/imperialism. I saw Avatar but have not made that connection until reading your post. Samir
Samir, I didn’t see it either when I saw the movie (maybe because I was so grasped by the movie). It dawned on me only a few days after as I reflected.
Pingback: Emergent Avatar Evangelism: Finding God in the Other « Wittenburg Church Door
The article’s profound message could very well apply to the Muslim agenda of conversion and conquest too! It seems like the Evangelicals and Muslims are hell-bent on negating other spiritual traditions, and vehemently forcing their own perception of “how to be saved”. This was a great article that urges commonality, respect and understanding between faith traditions.
“We celebrate good and beauty where ever we find it”.
Ibadat, you are exactly right. I think you’ve understood the essence of what I am saying. Thank you for stopping by!
My 15-year-old came home and told me to see Avatar for the “interfaith angle” (I haven’t seen it yet) so she “got it” right away.
Thanks for this thoughtful and elegant post. Samir’s book is very relevant to the topic and to, oh, everything, for me, right now.
But here’s my question. It sounds to me like what you are describing is Buber’s I-Thou relationship (see my blog post today, coincidentally on this topic and Epiphany). So is it necessary to retain the term “evangelism,” with all of its historical bagagge, if what you are describing is a two-way street? Because frankly, the term “evangelism” is always going to make my Jewish half (i.e. “the other”) very, very uncomfortable and impede a “love relationship.”
Wow, interesting observation coming from your daughter.
I agree with you about the heavy negative baggage the word “evangelism” has. By its use I ask the Christian community (of which I am part of) to rethink its meaning. I want to attempt to re-brand it if possible, clean its reputation and bring it back to its original use. I apologize that in the process I offend other traditions. I hope we Christians are seen in a better light.
Hi again,
Word evangelism does not show up in our sacred texts. It is a product of Christians who were quick to think nothing of objectifying the other. But to take it out of Christian vocabulary, today would amount to a treason. Better, I think would be to keep on pressing on the redefinition of it as exchange of good news (treasures) of our faiths. Peter Rollins has good things to say about that too. Moreover, let’s make “hearing other people’s good news” a Christian virtue, just doing the Golden Rule.
Samir
Evangelism is almost a transliteration from the greek word εὐαγγελίζω (εὔ = “good” and ἀγγέλλω = “I bring a message”) which basically really means to bring a good message. So this word and its variations actually occur several times in the New Testament. The word as we know it today is what is very different than what we find in the sacred texts.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I can’t comment on how it does or does not fulfill your description of evangelism that takes the reality and presence of God’s reign everywhere seriously.
But in my tradition (United Methodist) we have a similar but often misrepresented doctrine called “prevenient grace”– the ways God is already working to bring about salvation long before we are even aware of it. That we hold this does not and should not mean that we believe we have nothing to offer, no specific good news to share that is necessary for all to hear, also. But it should, at the very least, make us far less anxious about when and how we do so, if indeed we believe God is already at work to bring about salvation wherever and in and through whomever God can.
Very interesting insights, Florin. Because I don’t rank myself among the Evangelicals anymore, I tend not to use the term evangelism, simply because it is too arrogant. So here I agree with you. The very term suggests a one way street. I am extremely sensitive to any engagement with people that has a hidden agenda. I think evangelicals have been obsessed for so long with making the entire world evangelical, that they have forgoten how to live amongst people without trying to change them according to their own image. How does this not strike them as arrogant, is beyond me…
Pingback: Avatar and Christianity « A Christian Worldview of Fiction
Beautiful post, Florin! I MUST see this movie! I would say that both the word and traditional action associated with “evangelism” needs to be retired as it implies “bringing” – a one-directional movement “towards” the other with something of perceived value to offer that the other is “missing”.
In the Gospels, what you often see is hurt/enslaved/wounded people moving TOWARDS Jesus (not vice versa) to encounter the Light, the Presence (which is really how “salvation” is defined) they somehow sense. It is then in that intimate, brief interaction (conversation/touch/experience)with him that they are fully awakened/enlightened to God’s Presence in THEMSELVES…they are “healed” and they can now see/hear/walk/follow in The Way. The Divine Presence was in them all along, but it was buried, like the hidden treasure in the field.
Now Jesus did not “hole up” in a synagogue, waiting for people to find him – he went out to where the oppressed and hurting were. But more importantly he simply made himself FULLY available, with his eyes/ears/senses FULLY opened – seeing ALL the “burning bushes” (the Buddhists call this being Mindful).
So then, what if WE became fully mindful/present to God in ourselves and then to God in those all around us? What if WE had a more contemplative/non-dualistic mind (read all of Richard Rohr’s stuff!!!) so that we ARE open to the other – SEEING them – instead of judging/critiquing/positioning them (Jesus NEVER did this)? Would we not somehow have a more inviting/loving posture that would draw others in and allow them to open up and share? And what if in this encounter, something within US gets “healed”?
Maybe instead of “evangelism”, we should be seeking “God Encounters”!
I love what Richard Rohr says in “The Naked Now”:
“The enormous breakthrough is that when you honor and accept the divine image within yourself, you cannot help but see it in everybody else, too, and you know it is just as undeserved and unmerited as it is in you. That is why you stop judging, and that is how you start loving unconditionally and without asking whether someone is worthy or not. The breakthrough occurs at once, although the realization deepens and takes on greater conviction over time.”
OK…I don’t get it. Most of these comments here imply the authors are Christians, yet these same comments imply that truth is not to be found in the Bible. What I mean is this…Is the bible true or not? If yes, then how is it arrogant to evangelize in hopes someone doesn’t go to Hell? If it isn’t true, why lend credit to a deceitful book (the Bible states it is absolute truth, so if it isn’t, it is lying)? In other words, why go by the name Christian? And I definately don’t understand looking for God IN someone who isn’t a Christian, as the Bible makes it crystal clear that this is not a reality. Again, do you all believe the Bible or don’t you?
I like your post! I’m linking to it on my blog about the movie scheduled to post tomorrow morning at http://jacobscafe.blogspot.com.
ChurchSalt,
I love your comment. It makes so much sense what you are asking.
The short answer: I find that Jesus asks of me to do to others what I want others to do to me. The long answer: podcast talk here: http://www.emergentvillage.com/podcast/samir-selmanovic-on-finding-our-god-in-the-other
Cheers and peace, Samir
well, the bible is true. in a way, avatar might be also. but this is not the point here.
what is the good news? and, how someone communicates it? these might be the right questions.
two ways is better that one way communication, but it is also about making yourself greek with the greeks, a gentile with the gentiles. or a frog with the frogs, or a klingonian to the klingoniens. so in a way, it is the deliberate dressing up with an inferior status, position: being a palestinian in israel, a native african in south-africa apartheid regime, an extraterrestrial being in an extraterrestrial environment.
being aware of the situation, one places him/herself in a position of inferiority for the sake of winning someone for heaven and preventing him/her going to hell.
is what jesus did if he is the son of god. paul did some… maybe some of us did.
the pope’s legates to the heretics in europe, some hundred years ago preached them from a position of superiority. nobody cared less! dominic, realized that you have to dress like heretics, eat what they were eating, act the way they acted just to be accepted. even if you come with the truth. he succeeded.
now, I have to do these in a different context. am I going to abandon my high position to get to them, down there? there is a lesson in avatar, if I did not get one from the bible.
Alexandru, I think the issue is to take Golden Rule very seriously. It is not a matter of method of contextualization. If we expect others to take us seriously (that we know how not to get to “hell,” for example), if we want them to consider our revelation, then we should do that first. The issue is that evangelism has been betraying evangelion.
I can learn a lot from a person who is less technologically advanced than I am. They are so darn good at relationships and at appreciating the simple stuff of this world. I haven’t seen depressed people who live in a small, poor community. They seem to enjoy life more than I am. From this perspective when I look at people, I don’t see anybody inferior to me. I would argue that a scholarly person with higher education has as much to teach me as a person who didn’t even finish high-school, who grows his crops with patience and appreciation for the land that feeds him. In my vocabulary I don’t think inferior should even exist. Anyone can pick-up the smell of superiority.
The Gospel is seeing where “the other” is good at (because only God can accomplish that) and make the God connection (like Ap. Paul did in Athens).
I would like to submit a few ideas. 1) If we are to treat others as we would be treated, then evangelism (bringing a message of truth) is crucial. If I am on a bad path, I want someone to tell me, even if it hurts my feelings. Better hurt feelings than bad path. 2) The vast majority of what we see called evangelism…isn’t. A message of “ask Jesus into your heart” isn’t in Scripture, and the subsequent message of go out and be a good boy/girl so you will go to heaven is actually condemned in Scripture. 3)Any platform of superiority is simply pride, and condemned in Scripture. However, there is a difference between humbly bringing a message of truth and compromising a message of truth so it is less offensive. 4)My last and most crucial point. Not to point a finger at Alexandru, but “Klingonian” is not proper. Klingon (singular) or Klingons (plural). I will not concede this point!!
ChurchSalt,
I agree with all three of your points, especially on 4. And on 1. If we think we have a treasure that others need we are obligated (by virtue of being part of human community) to share it, and by our faith. If someone has a cure for what ails me I don’t want them to keep it away from me for fear of offending me. In fact, not to speak our truth for fear of offending would be offensive–thinking that other people would not or cannot hear us. Non-Christians are wonderful, wise, and kind, and they want to hear us out. But they also might have some cure for us.
Samir, I totally agree with your point about non-Christians being capable of curing us IF we are open to the other. I think of the story in Mark where the Phoenician woman “converts” Jesus. I think of non-Christians like Gandhi who walked in the nonviolent/loving Way of Jesus far more than MOST Christians I know (myself included!). While the Christian may have some treasure to offer the other, so too the non-Christian has much treasure to offer us.
Yeah, because Paul was just oh-so-ready for those who came to Christ from idols to go one worshiping those idols while also worshiping Christ.
Because Paul really didn’t mind all that much that those in the Church eat meats that had been sacrificed to idols.
Wow, why didn’t I see that before–Christians worshipped all kinds of other gods in the New Testaments!! Now if only someone could provide me book, chapter, and verse for where they did that, and where it was approved.
emergent pillage, you seem to be missing to point.
Isn’t Paul the one saying there is really only ONE God and that idols are merely human creations, people’s sincere attempt at grasping the divine?
“Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23) What is that if not seeing God in their worship? Were there things that were not right/true in their worship? Sure, we all have that. Who is arrogant enough to say that he or she has figured it all out. We all worship our own idols (our misconceptions of God; even people sincerely devoted to Scriptures have throughout history had distorted views of God) being sincere in our desire to worship and know the true God. Thinking that we’re the ONLY ones who sincerely pursue God is at best arrogant and at worst a bad anthropology (about this see more in the upcoming post).
Wasn’t Paul who wrote: “Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.”(1 Corinthians 8:4) Paul doesn’t seem to be thinking he’s the only one who’s got knowledge or exclusive access to God. Doesn’t he sound like he has an epistemology of humility??? or “If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.” (1 Corinthians 10:27) Doesn’t this show respect for “the other”, who might not believe what you believe? And Paul was not talking here about a regular meal, but a worship meal. For you who are “strong” (as Paul calls it) engaging in someone else’s religious worship should not be done with resistance, since you know there is really only ONE God.
I would ask all of us to revisit our Scriptures and read them with a more open minded posture, really allowing them to speak to us (even when they don’t seem to fit our preconceived notions and systems).
Or to put it another way…
Since Christ’s own death, Christians have given their lives to take the Gospel to those who haven’t heard. We have the record in the New Testament of many of Paul’s missions trips. We see Peter and Philip taking the Gospel to the Gentiles.
We have records of Christian’s being persecuted and killed because of their faith in Christ. It is going on today.
This attempt by emergents to redefine evangelism as “being evangelized by other religions” not only betrays and dishonors those who have suffered and died to take the Gospel to those without it, but is a blasphemous misinterpretation of the Christ’s Great Commission.
Just as we have records of Christians persecuting, torturing and killing people of other faiths (Muslims included). And that’s exactly the point of this post to stop all of this. Instead of demonizing the other, let’s all create a sacred space where we can hear each other out and allow for the other to see things differently than we do.
I agree, Florin.
When I read “The Sheep and the Goats” in Matthew, Jesus seems to say that those who love others (and, in doing so, love God) will be the ones blessed and invited into the Kingdom. There seems to be no asterisks or “fine print”. Those that don’t even realize WHO they are really serving (read “non-Christians”) could be recognizing Love without naming/labeling it.
Many “Christians” will say that Gandhi is burning in hell simply because he did not claim to be a “Christian”. By Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 25, I contend that Gandhi encountered The Divine/God/Christ for more than most that claim to be Christian. I don’t think Gandhi needed to be “evangelized”.
I also don’t think people need to “hear” the Gospel – I think they simply need to “experience” it and “taste” it.
christianity is and will be christ-like only when lived and offered from a humble position. a ‘christian’ state with a ‘christian’ army and so on, contradicts what christ really did and was on this planet. christian persecution and faulty evengelism began when the church and state shook hands in promoting each other. to what expense? avatar is a similar example. what’s the avatar of the church and the state today?
There seems to be a lot of talk about the Gospel in this discussion, but it seems to me that everyone has a different odea of what the Gospel is. Paul does a nice summary of it in First Corinthians “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”
So according to Scripture, the Gospel is not good deeds, the Gospel is in fact Christ dying for our sins. Love compels this news to be shared, and so does our Lord when He commands us to preach the Gospel message “to all the world” So was Ghandi a nice guy? Most likely. But did Ghandi have the ? No.
So, Churchsalt.com, you are discounting what Jesus said in Matthew 25? Jesus is NOT talking about “good deeds” there – he is saying loving others IS loving God. So you think Gandhi was simply a “nice guy”? Do you think he is burning in hell?
And here’s what I don’t understand: if the Gospel is “Jesus had to die for our sins”, why didn’t Jesus ever tell this to those outcasts he encountered? Why, when he healed/restored them, didn’t he say “oh, God has to have me killed first for what I just did for you to become permanent. You’re not REALLY in the Kingdom of God. I just put on a temporary patch – just doing a few magic tricks to impress folks. You’ll have to have Paul or one the others finish the salvation job after I’m dead.”? Seems to be piss-poor evangelism by Jesus if he KNEW his death was essential for salvation AND DIDN’T TELL ANYONE!
And I read Paul saying the Jesus died BECAUSE of the sins of religion/empire. It seems to me that the RESURRECTION part of Paul’s explanation in the letter to the Corinthians – that death is NOT the end, the Roman Empire did NOT win by executing Jesus, that LOVE is what wins in the end.
But, I know you read the Bible differently than I, and your definition of the Gospel is different than mine. And I know you can’t “convert” me to YOUR theology any more than I can convince you of mine. And so the dance goes on…
So JeffcStraka, the Gospel is NOT, as Jesus said, Him “giving His life as a ransom” (poor word word choice if He is just an example)? Or as Isaiah said “He was wounded for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”
His chastisement brought us peace… His wounds healed us… and the fact the whole chapters of Isaiah 52 and 53 describe atonement… well, that is a LOT of Scripture to discount. But I digress, many here have already been thru that discussion, so on to the heart of my next question which may perhaps be less discussed. What about sin? How is God to remain a just judge and let Ghandi escape the punishment for His transgressions? Do you believe a just judge who sentences a criminal on Earth is actually more just then the Lord? It is made abundently clear sin is acrime before God, and it is also abundently clear that obeying God has never earned anybody a spot in Heaven. Just wondering how you fit that all together.
Matthew 20:28 – Jesus “gave his life” every day that he went out among the hurting and oppressed. He lived not for himself, but totally for God, in sacrificial service to others. “As a ransom” means that his self-emptying life freed others from their captivity of poverty, hunger, blindness, greed, withering (see his inaugural message in Luke 4:18-10, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2). He tried to teach others that THIS WAY – the way of giving power away instead of clinging to it, even if it meant the powers would kill you – was the way they ALL could live, and it would free themselves and it would free those they served.
Jesus’ execution demonstrated the ABSURDITY of the way of the world. Jesus’ resurrection showed that capital punishment wasn’t the final word – worldly power DIDN’T win after all. Did we learn from it? It doesn’t appear that we took Jesus seriously. If we did, we would not be killing our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq – we would be feeding them and clothing them. If we did, we would not be spending half of our national budget on the military, but spending it on health care for the neglected. If we did, we would not be worried about “buying” our way out of the recession and recapturing our wealth – we would be living simpler lives and sharing with the poor. Jesus showed us the way to freedom – the way of salvation – but did we take him seriously? Yeah…what ABOUT sin?
JeffcStraka, you have brought a lot of ideas into this discussion, including politics, so may I try to consolodate? I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth, just trying to get an accurate grasp of the overall message. Simply put, the Emergent message is the idea that everyone should receive equal shares of the benefits derived from labor and wealth. The poor will rise up and attain financial and social status equal to that of others. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth is redistributed (through giving) so that the members of the upper class become equal with middle and lower classes. Or in one sentence: Mankind has the ability (and duty) to work together in a self denying way so as that all can have a more healthy, prosperous and fulfilling life which will result in a “Heaven on Earth” type of environment.
Am I summarizing correctly or am I mis-interpreting the Emergent position?
The “Emergent” message? Uh…I kind of think caring for the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, the sick is GOD’S message/idea, as is gleaning and Jubilee, as is “the first shall be last, the last will be first”. I kind of get that by reading the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospels.
I stopped praying or “talking” to God as they say, through loud speaking many years ago. I found that I can honestly speak with Him only through “my neighbor”(my family, friends and everyone I meet on my journey).
I don’t pretend to know what “spreading the good news” is. I have so little of the good news in my everyday life that playing the happy-clappy role in the hope of getting the others in the mood looks like clovnery to me.
My (not so good) news 🙂
Sam, we all have something good, beautiful to share with the “world”. It may not fit predetermined definitions, we may have been talked into believing otherwise, but … if we are truly honest with ourselves, we will always find something worth sharing, something that can enrich others.
Is the “good and beautiful” you reference Christ within us?
Yes, in the sense that we derive our worth (good, beauty etc.) from God, as His creatures (see also the image of God in us). This kind of worth comes with the territory, with being human. So everybody has it. It is part of what defines us as “human” beings.
Pingback: AVATAR: 4 Perspectives on the Top Grossing Film Ever | James Henley
Pingback: Stretched Illustrations? | Contemplations Along The Way
Hey Florin,
An interesting article (I first saw on theooze.com). I started writing a reply, however, it proved to be too long to put into a comment. I’ve written my reply on my website, if you’re (or anyone else) is interested in reading it. I apologize, I tried to avoid linking:
http://nascentthinker.org/stretched-illustrations/