Proselytizing

[clem456]

I’ve never in my life seen so much arguing between people who essentially agree on what evangelization is. Really, it just goes on and on with people actively looking for something to disagree about, rather than finding common ground.
It must be the new sport, to parse definitions of words, and pick apart the unkown motivations and meanings of other posters.

 

[simple_soul]

I’ve never in my life seen so much arguing between people who essentially agree on what evangelization is. Really, it just goes on and on with people actively looking for something to disagree about, rather than finding common ground.
It must be the new sport, to parse definitions of words, and pick apart the unkown motivations and meanings of other posters.

I’m sorry if I read like I am arguing. It’s not what I am trying to do. What I am trying to do is use words when necessary in trying to understand my faith better and maybe help others come to a better understanding too.

 

[Eufrosnia]

What you seem to be saying or trying to imply with all your posts is that every signal charitable act needs to have words along with it in order for it to be considered evangelization. If that were the case we would be talking non stop.

First, good works are done to please God. Not to get others to convert. Your primary problem here is that you have made an intimate connection between Good works as being evangelizing by itself. It is not.

So my point is not that right after you share some food with a homeless person, you slap them with gospels truths. That is not what I mean. Rather, what I am saying is that our primary method of evangelizing is by giving actual reasons to convert to Christianity and reject the false religions/ideologies etc.

What this means is that the Church should encourage those who can do something like that rather than emphasize charity works as the end all and be all of evangelizing.

simple_soul:
Even this quote indicates that we have to be ** prepared** to use words when it is demanded/necsassery. I do not believe anyone one this thread or the other thread is trying to say anything different.

Usually the quote “use words when necessary” is taken to mean don’t use words at all. That is a problem. Why? Because words are necessary.

Choosing a religion is based on whether it is true or false. Not some emotional feeling. That means that the issue is a complicated matter. Its not something you can just “know”. So to explain why their current religion is false, and to explain why Catholicism is true, one must use words. That is why I say that evangelizing must primarily be through words. In other words, its not that use words when necessary but “you will necessarily have to use words when that other person becomes interested”.

What we have today is that people don’t want to use words because for

1. they might not know their own religion well enough to know why they even believe it as true
2. they feel reluctant to show that the other religion is a false religion

That is what I am against.

Doing charity works can cause others to get interested in checking out Christianity. But that is a SIDE EFFECT and also not reasons in and of itself.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Again you seem to want to say that every act of charity needs to have words with it. If that were the case we would never stop talking.

Well, its not like we don’t talk anyway. So I am not sure what you mean?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Another thought I just had that might explain better what I beleive Pope Francis may be trying to tell us is that it takes more than just words and actions to evangelize. We have to take the transforming Love and Mercy of God to these people through our words and actions. In order for us to do this we have to be transformed by God’s Love and Mercy. If we ourselves are not transformed so that Jesus’ Love and Mercy can touch others through our every thought, word and action then we are not evangelizing we are proselytizing. Hhhmmm will have to ponder this some more.

But Pope Francis has clearly said that we need both witness through our lives AND proclamation through WORDS to evangelize.

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7477

But, he asked, do Christians today really believe in the power of their baptism?

“Is it sufficient for evangelization? Or do we rather ‘hope’ that the priest should speak, that the bishop might speak?”

This way of seeing Christianity often carries with it the attitude of, ‘I was baptized, I made Confirmation, First Communion … I have my identity card, alright.’ And now, go to sleep quietly, you are a Christian,” the Pope explained.
**
Instead, he said that believers must be “faithful to the Spirit, to proclaim Jesus with our lives, through our witness and our words.**”

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’ve never in my life seen so much arguing between people who essentially agree on what evangelization is. Really, it just goes on and on with people actively looking for something to disagree about, rather than finding common ground.
It must be the new sport, to parse definitions of words, and pick apart the unkown motivations and meanings of other posters.

It is an important topic. I think at least I can speak for myself that you and I do not agree on this very topic. You believe that doing charity works is evangelizing in itself. I disagree that it is only a part of evangelizing and even then, it is only as a side effect.

To maybe try and explain this a different way. This whole issue is something like this.

Jesus tells Tommy, I command you to not abort your children. That is immoral because it is a life of a full human being from the moment of conception. You must teach my commands to the world.
Tommy then decides that the best way to teach, that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, is to not abort his own children and that alone is sufficient.

As far as my little brain can comprehend, that is absurd on the part of Tommy. Its all good that he is not aborting his children but he should also be telling others why they shouldn’t abort. Tommy should

In the same way, the more you know Christianity is true, the more you should start to see how distorted these other religions, ideologies and philosophies are. If you have any sympathy toward your fellow man, I think you should be doing everything you can to convince them what a mess they believe and why it is wrong. This doesn’t mean you do this all the time without any sensitivity to the time and place. But nevertheless, it is what you must do.

Instead, there is a push today in the church by various parties to not do that and just do what Tommy did.

 

[Eufrosnia]

From Pope’s Twitter

@PONTIFEX: Let us not forget: if we are to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus, our lives must bear witness to what we preach.

The Pope is not saying that bearing witness in our lives is evangelization by itself. Rather, he is pointing out that if we are to proclaim, we must live lives that resemble what we preach as well. So he certainly seems to be suggesting that evangelizing is primarily through words, supported by our witness through the way we live our lives.

 

[OraLabora]

In life, sometimes one needs to know when to speak up and when to shut up. And it’s not always easy distinguishing between the two.

In evangelization, it’s no different, except that something grave is at stake, the sate of someone’s soul. Speak out of turn and lose a soul, or fail to speak up and lose a soul, are serious situations, IMHO.

Some folks should probably always keep their mouths shut.

Either way, I still think the first step is opening someone’s heart to be able to receive the message, and that can require very long months if not years of preparation. Conversion can be a very long process. And in those long years it may be necessary to not speak about the subject.

When one speaks of a life of “witness”, as a means of evangelizing without words, it’s more than just acts of charity and decency. It is expressing unqualified love for even the those of most humble state, it’s living in humility ourselves, and most important of all, it is radiating the joy of a simple, grace-filled life. The latter may in fact be the hard part.

Moreover, for many people, the “words” they use to evangelize should not be out-proof-texting the Bible when arguing with an evangelical, or showing someone how the Bible is superior to the Koran, or convincing an atheist/agnostic of the philosophical arguments in favour of God.

It is saying with sincerity those words that express love for the person we are speaking with (and not speaking to), and in equal measures, express the absolute joy and serenity we feel from having a grace-filled life. Those things can be expressed while at the same time showing respect for the other’s point of view, and for respecting his or her inherent dignity no matter what their faith (or lack of), and without uttering a single religious argument.

That is what is a beacon attracting one to one’s faith. And that is the difference between proselytizing and evangelizing. It’s why most Catholic missions don’t in fact proselytize but instead live among their missions bringing their joy to them.

Then when the other’s heart opens up to hear the message and to try and understand the joy of a grace-filled life, we can teach.

Laity and religious alike, I think, have the duty to work hard on their conversion to become those beacons of joy and grace. That is the major work of evangelizing I think: evangelizing, truly evangelizing, ourselves first. It requires a maturation of the faith, and a slow process of conversion. The Rule of St. Benedict, with its 12 degrees of humility, is one such conversion process.

A life of grace, love and joy can build a bridge and open a heart to hearing the message of God; one word spoken out of turn can turn off a soul for a long time, if not forever.

When we witness with our lives, it’s not just performing works of charity (though those are important). It is ourselves opening our hearts up to grace, accepting our strengths and shortcomings, and letting the result shine like a beacon for others.

 

[simple_soul]

First, good works are done to please God. Not to get others to convert.

I never said good works were not done for pleasing God. I’m sorry I gave you that impression.

Your primary problem here is that you have made an intimate connection between Good works as being evangelizing by itself. It is not.

I really do not know what more I can say other than if this is what I am saying and it is wrong then please keep me in your prayers that God gives me the grace to some day see and understand.

 

[Eufrosnia]

In life, sometimes one needs to know when to speak up and when to shut up. And it’s not always easy distinguishing between the two.

In evangelization, it’s no different, except that something grave is at stake, the sate of someone’s soul. Speak out of turn and lose a soul, or fail to speak up and lose a soul, are serious situations, IMHO.

Some folks should probably always keep their mouths shut.

You are speaking here of effectively communicating. That is not the point of debate here. It is rather the necessity of communication for evangelizing.

There is a necessity to protest abortion. You cannot say that such a necessity does not exist because some people take it too far and go and blow up clinics, yes? Same applies here.

Either way, I still think the first step is opening someone’s heart to be able to receive the message, and that can require very long months if not years of preparation. Conversion can be a very long process. And in those long years it may be necessary to not speak about the subject.

Well, if one does not know what to say, by all means. But it is the responsibility of each person to know their faith and have reasons to present.

The reason why it takes most people time is because they are waiting for some special revelation. They feel attracted in some way to the faith but rightfully, their minds question whether the faith is true. So they wait and wait and wait…

The right thing to do is give them reasons. That is done by using words explaining and clarifying.

When one speaks of a life of “witness”, as a means of evangelizing without words, it’s more than just acts of charity and decency. It is expressing unqualified love for even the those of most humble state, it’s living in humility ourselves, and most important of all, it is radiating the joy of a simple, grace-filled life. The latter may in fact be the hard part.

Love takes many meanings without religion and depending on religion. For some people, love means same sex marriage and listening to their sex drive. For others, something else and so forth. So I think it is unreasonable to say that “my love convinces people to join my faith”. My love cannot prove that my faith is true.

Moreover, for many people, the “words” they use to evangelize should not be out-proof-texting the Bible when arguing with an evangelical, or showing someone how the Bible is superior to the Koran, or convincing an atheist/agnostic of the philosophical arguments in favour of God.

The words used must indeed show why the Koran is unworthy of belief and the Bible true. Why existence of God is worthy of belief and the opposite untrue. That is just how it works.

Just as you cannot convince a person of a mathematical truth without giving reasons, you cannot expect a reasonable person to assent because you love them. Perhaps there was a time when this was possible. But people do not think this way anymore and they rightfully want a reason to believe rather than anecdotal evidence.

It is saying with sincerity those words that express love for the person we are speaking with (and not speaking to), and in equal measures, express the absolute joy and serenity we feel from having a grace-filled life. Those things can be expressed while at the same time showing respect for the other’s point of view, and for respecting his or her inherent dignity no matter what their faith (or lack of), and without uttering a single religious argument.

But if we were to apply your own standard, we will have to conclude that we cannot know which religion is true. Why? Because there are those in every religion that “loves” or claims to “love”.

You are advocating that one can go from

1. That follower of of religion X really touches my heart
2. Therefore religion X must be true

That is unreasonable. That is what gets people to follow messed up people like Jim Jones or David Koresh’s of our society too.

That is what is a beacon attracting one to one’s faith. And that is the difference between proselytizing and evangelizing. It’s why most Catholic missions don’t in fact proselytize but instead live among their missions bringing their joy to them.
…
When we witness with our lives, it’s not just performing works of charity (though those are important). It is ourselves opening our hearts up to grace, accepting our strengths and shortcomings, and letting the result shine like a beacon for others.

We convert ourselves for our salvation. Not to evangelize. To evangelize, we must give others reasons to convert. The only reason to convert to any faith is because it is true. The fact that we follow what we believe meticulously is not proof that our religion is true. Neither is our joy or being at peace. Mother Teresa had a her dark nights of the soul. Those weren’t exactly filled with joy. Even if they were, its not proof that Christianity is true. Jim Jones and David Koresh had followers who were very much at peace filled with joy. It took quiet the tragedy in the end to bring them down to earth.

Bottom line here is that trying to use our witness as the sole reason for others to convert is like using a bad argument. It is unreasonable and dangerous.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I never said good works were not done for pleasing God. I’m sorry I gave you that impression.

I did not say you did. I was just pointing that out.

I really do not know what more I can say other than if this is what I am saying and it is wrong then please keep me in your prayers that God gives me the grace to some day see and understand.

Well, you can also think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-believer. Remind yourself that you will only accept Christianity then if you had reason to think it true.

Now ask yourself how you would know Christianity is true just by looking at the joy, love, and peace of the Christians.

Some careful thinking will make you realize that it indeed does not give any reason. So for us to ask or hope people to convert due to that sort of reason is to hope that they are unreasonable. Worse, it reduces our Catholic faith that is reasonable to an arbitrary appeal/choice one has to make. Why would we want to do that?

 

[Indyann]

I did not say you did. I was just pointing that out.

Well, you can also think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-believer. Remind yourself that you will only accept Christianity then if you had reason to think it true.

Now ask yourself how you would know Christianity is true just by looking at the joy, love, and peace of the Christians.

Some careful thinking will make you realize that it indeed does not give any reason. So for us to ask or hope people to convert due to that sort of reason is to hope that they are unreasonable. Worse, it reduces our Catholic faith that is reasonable to an arbitrary appeal/choice one has to make. Why would we want to do that?

Simple Soul, Just want to say that I agree with you and Ora and Br. Jay. If I may offer a guess, I would say that at least 85% of faithful Catholics also agree.

Having been catechized 8 yrs by Franciscans and 4 yrs by Benedictans, I was always taught, the very best witness to the Christian life, is the life you, yourself live.

That is not to say that if someone feels comfortable knocking on doors or passing out flyers, they should not do that. If someone feels called to teach CCD, RCIA, etc.,then that is their witness.
After all, the Gospel tells us “always to be ready”. To me that means that we should be ready, if someone approaches us. Not that we should go out and tug on people’s sleeve and ask “why don’t you convert to Catholicism?:”

I have a new grandson-in-law. He was baptized Catholic as a baby, and attended Catholic school til the third grade. His whole family fell away many years ago. He is now asking me all kinds of questions about Catholic beliefs and the Mass and various and sundry questions.

Should he ever come back to the Church, it will be because he is listening to the proddings of the Holy Spirit. That is His job. Mine is to be “ready” to answer my grandson-in-law’s questions. Conversion is way above my pay grade.

 

[simple_soul]

I did not say you did. I was just pointing that out.

Well, you can also think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-believer. Remind yourself that you will only accept Christianity then if you had reason to think it true.

Now ask yourself how you would know Christianity is true just by looking at the joy, love, and peace of the Christians.

Some careful thinking will make you realize that it indeed does not give any reason. So for us to ask or hope people to convert due to that sort of reason is to hope that they are unreasonable. Worse, it reduces our Catholic faith that is reasonable to an arbitrary appeal/choice one has to make. Why would we want to do that?

I would only know through God’s Grace.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Simple Soul, Just want to say that I agree with you and Ora and Br. Jay. If I may offer a guess, I would say that at least 85% of faithful Catholics also agree.

Having been catechized 8 yrs by Franciscans and 4 yrs by Benedictans, I was always taught, the very best witness to the Christian life, is the life you, yourself live.

That is not to say that if someone feels comfortable knocking on doors or passing out flyers, they should not do that. If someone feels called to teach CCD, RCIA, etc.,then that is their witness.
After all, the Gospel tells us “always to be ready”. To me that means that we should be ready, if someone approaches us. Not that we should go out and tug on people’s sleeve and ask “why don’t you convert to Catholicism?:”

I have a new grandson-in-law. He was baptized Catholic as a baby, and attended Catholic school til the third grade. His whole family fell away many years ago. He is now asking me all kinds of questions about Catholic beliefs and the Mass and various and sundry questions.
**
Should he ever come back to the Church, it will be because he is listening to the proddings of the Holy Spirit. That is His job. Mine is to be “ready” to answer my grandson-in-law’s questions. Conversion is way above my pay grade**.

What you wrote at the end if the most important. If not for you, someone else should or he himself must discover reasons.

Witness through ones lives cannot be reason to think the religion is true. It is just evidence that there are believers of the religion who follow the precepts closely. But that is in no way reason to think that the religion is true.

I am also not asking to blindly agree or disagree with me. If you do feel that my objection is false, then you can give me reasons why one would convert based on seeing a “good Christian”. If there is no reason, then the objection stands.

I am also not saying that we go tug on other people and bash them with Catholicism. But we should be trying to sneak it in to our conversations at least, if we know we can defend it and make a case. Right now, its as if no one cares and everyone is living in this world where they are hoping people will just convert because they are good Christians. That is unreasonable.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I would only know through God’s Grace.

You would know which? Also, what exactly do you refer to as God’s grace? You identify God’s grace after you have embraced the faith. Till then, some people might call it chance, luck, blind fate etc.

 

[simple_soul]

You would know which? Also, what exactly do you refer to as God’s grace? You identify God’s grace after you have embraced the faith. Till then, some people might call it chance, luck, blind fate etc.

God’s Grace is the reason I would embrace the faith and it is through His Grace that I would come to know and under stand that it is His Grace and not chance, luck, blind fate etc

 

[Eufrosnia]

Moving over from a different thread

I can tell that you’re against it. But the Church does not share your opinion. The Church places a great deal of faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit to speak through words and through gestures. Both need not happen at the same time. Sometimes, one is more appropriate than the other.

Regardless of whether it be through words or actions, it will always be through the Holy Spirit. That is not at debate here.

The point of debate here is whether it is reasonable to justify unreasonable assent due to gesture. Since gesture cannot provide reason to convert, it is not a reasonable methodology for evangelizing in and of itself.

To disagree would require you to provide some Church teaching that the Church is pro-unresaonable assent. But I am willing to bet that there is no such teaching because Council of Trent condemned requiring unreasonable assent under Fideism.

You and many great missionaries disagree, not to mention you and Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis.

Can you provide actual teaching by at least one of them? Because as far as I am aware, there exists no teaching that says “good works by itself is evangelizing”. Nearly every Pope, including POPE FRANCIS has said that witness through life AND WORDS is evangelizing.

So I am not really sure if they disagree with me at all.

Once upon a time, St. Francis asked Br. Leo to go with him to preach. The arrived at the town. Br. Leo followed Francis waiting to see where they would stop to preach. As they went through the town, Francis greeted everyone and showed great love for the people of that place. When they reached the gate at the other side of the town, Br. Leo asked the Holy Father, “Where are we going to preach?” To which the Holy Father answered, “We just did.”

These are legends though. And you have to admit that we are not to follow St. Francis. We follow the Church of Christ and we interpret and dissect the life of St. Francis through the teachings of the Church. Not the other way around.

Going through a town with smiles and joy is not reason to think the religion of St. Francis true, yes? If you were to put yourself in the shoes of an unbeliever, what part of that story makes you think Christianity is true?

More importantly, are you aware of the names Jim Jones or David Koresh? Do you know why people were drawn to them?

That was not my experience and the Franciscans never tried to convince me to become Catholic. They showed me Catholicism through the way that they imitated Francis’ love for Christ.

As I said before, things are good because you became Catholic this way. But others might have left the very Catholic Church because they felt “love” in the United Church or with a Jim Jones or a David Koresh. Do you realize why the position you are advocating is actually dangerous?

I know that I’m not a great luminary. If an ox like me can see that there is something out of the ordinary to these men, others who are more intelligent can see it more quickly and probably understand it with less questions than I asked.

A person being happy and joyful does not give us reason to think there is something extraordinary in them. You have happy atheists, happy Catholics, happy Buddhists, happy Hindus, happy sociopaths, happy followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh etc.

So how is happiness, joy or love that these people offer any indication that their faith is true?

I would kindly like to request if possible, that you perhaps look in to the figures such as Jim Jones or David Koresh. These people thrived on using the things you want to use to win followers. In fact, one of the common tricks used to recruit is called “love bombing”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing

But here you are advocating that we use this very principle and methodology as our primary method of evangelizing. Why? We should be, if anything, driving people away from even thinking of doing something of that sort. This is a dangerous position where people have been killed as a result

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple#Mass_murder.2Fsuicide_at_the_Temple.27s_Jonestown_agricultural_commune

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh#Raid_and_siege_by_federal_authorities

What you must remember is that any such thing a Catholic can do, anyone else can do too. What others cannot do is give actual reasons to believe their religion. That is where we should be concentrating on. Not going in to this sort of cheap tactics. Does it work? yes. But it is playing with fire.

So I am not sure why you are honestly advocating this and even claiming that people should follow it.

 

[JReducation]

What I disagree with is the position that “doing charity work and living a good Christian life” is evangelizing in itself. It is not evangelizing in itself because it alone gives no reason for anyone to think Christianity true.

Watch point made by the pope at the 18:20 minute.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Watch point made by the pope at the 18:20 minute.

This is really not teaching Brother. I can quote you a dozen other things like this that support my point as I have already done on this thread quoting Pope Francis’s twiitter message and one of his homilies.

Do you have an actual document that you can refer to? After all, Pope’s are not infallible protected in this type of scenario either. In specific video you speak of, he also seems to be talking about worship rather than evangelizing. He says prayer is not the only form of worship but we also worship God by how we live our lives. No arguments there. I see no reference that doing good works is evangelizing in and of itself. But even if there was, I would argue that it is just an utterance that is not necessarily infallible. We have to look at it in the context of other things he said and in other place he has emphasize evangelizing as being both testimony through life and words. Not just a life of good works.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would address my concerns that I brought forth in my last post.