We’ve been talking about moving past our Christian cloisters to make friends with “normal” people, and yesterday, about what some first steps might look like We still have some good conversation going on in the comments attached to that post, so if anyone’s got some ideas about how to begin, head on over there and share your thoughts. In yesterday’s post, I did promise some further thoughts today — and these are perhaps some more of the more controversial (or at least harsh) ones. In thinking about missional themes and making friendships outside the Christian community, it seems that there’s one particular idea that may prove one of the harder ones to fall, and that’s what I want to explore a little… it invades our thinking from our attractional evangelistic days, and we need to eradicate it from our thinking.
Policitcal colonisation is something the church has historically been complicit in through their Christian Mission, naturally with the goal of spiritual colonisation… and perhaps of “civilizing the natives” along the way. The two went hand-in-hand, and there’s very little argument of the fact. Colonialism though, has not been recognized as one of history’s brighter moments or ideals, and the need for Decolonisation has been clearly identified.
Holding that thought for a moment, It is argued that pornography objectifes and dehumanizes women. There are arguments against this view, but they would certainly form the minority opinion. I don’t want to get off-track into a discussion of pornography, but one alternative has been to make a distinction between types of pornography — dehumanizing vs. erotic pornography. The greatest objection is obviously to the former, but it is at least anecdotal if not axiomatic that a steady diet of the latter will lead eventually to the former. Distinction or no, it has been shown that there is a link between (dehumanizing forms of) pornography and opinions (at the least) toward violence to women. Are women objectified and dehumanized? I think we’re on the path to general agreement on the point.
The same is said of the media, of advertising… not only in their use of women in advertising. This is true enough to have made Pamela Anderson a celebrity based on the chance Jumbotron appearance that famously landed her a Labatt‘s campaign as the Blue Zone Girl. Maybe it culminates in the Abercrombie T-shirt that for $24.95 proclaimed (emblazoned across the chest), “Who needs brains when you have these?” The need for a counter-revolution has been seen, enough that it was a notable anti-trend when a campaign for Dove soap decided to buck the trend.
Advertisers (or marketers) have also been criticized for a dehumanizing ideal in their treatment of the market itself. You have to imagine that anything defined as a “target” isn’t puting humanity at the top of the list of considerations… and it doesn’t help to refer to it colloquially as a “demo“. The first five theses in The Cluetrain Manifesto illustrate the point:
- Markets are conversations.
- Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
- Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
- Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.
- People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.
The manifesto goes on to describe how the market has come to view the marketers, and how they’re essentially asserting their humanity. We’re on-side with these responses — nobody wants to be treated as less than human. This is the essence of the Civil Rights Movement… both in America and elsewhere. (Not to mention the more basic Human Rights.) We want to be treated like people, and people who have value as individuals, as people.
We don’t want to be dehumanized… and this is where we’ll start to tie up the preceding material: dehumanization is a weapon of colonialism. Even the mere gathering of information has been seen to have been objectifying and dehumanizing practices:
Historically, research has been a tool of the colonizing forces to objectify/dehumanize, study, categorize/divide/dis-unify, control, disempower and colonize our communities. For the communities most impacted by the lingering effects of colonization, gathering our own knowledge about, by and for ourselves is part of a process of building power in our communities; it is essential to community self-determination and part of the process of liberation. Reclaiming the central place of community in building and guiding knowledge for community benefit and action is critical in decolonizing research.
This necessitates decolonization:
By challenging the colonizing dynamics within our mental, intellectual, political, social and spiritual institutions, decolonization changes victims into actors, liberates the oppressed to achieve our full human potential. Decolonizing research involves reclaiming community knowledge to build grassroots power, self-determination and liberation.
I don’t mean to disparage all missionary endeavour, but with that caveat, I’ve already noted that early missionary efforts were largely those of colonialism. I would suggest that our practices in this regard haven’t changed much. We’re still trying to conquer or overcome the culture we live in and are engaged with — or not. How far removed are we, really, from the pith helmet? Leaving behind the concept of the traditional cross-cultural missionary, our local evangelistic efforts have still been largely concerned with making other people more like us. Whether we start with beliefs or habits, the real intent is that we’ll convert both.
Now, friendship evangelism is defined as “an approach to evangelism characterized by Christians developing relationships with people in order to show them kindness and talk to them about God eventually”, and it’s the “in order to” that I’ve got a problem with… because even though friendship is good, friendship with ulterior motives is not. It isn’t even real friendship. Although the whole “friendship evangelism” model gets it right in trying to model how Jesus related to people, there’s still an ulterior motive… it isn’t pure.
I remember back in my college days we jokingly referred to “missionary dating,” the process we observed whereby a Christian would date a non-Christian… and typically after they had made a profession of faith, the dating relationship would end and the missionary dater would move on. We disparaged the practice… it may have been motivated more by thoughts of the missionary position than of the missionary endeavour. (Well, it was conquest either way.)
I recall in my CLB that we had a target on the wall — inspired by Rick Warren, I think — which had a metalic background of some sort. We then had a whole bunch of little magnets on which we would write people’s names that we knew… and then we would pray for them as they progressed from the community to the congregation to the committed to the core. From outside to inside, from the outer ring to the center of the target.
It’s my contention that all of these notions and practices underly or promote a view of the unchurched that treats them as objects, as targets, as currency, as conquests… in some way of course, dehumanising them in the process. Oh, we’d never say it that way… but the distinction is not abundantly clear to me. Jesus dined with people, talked with people, and healed people somewhat indescriminantly. If he hadn’t, he would not have been nearly so offensive to the establishment. He didn’t withold healing for those who responded to the gospel message, and neither should we withold our friendship from others, for any such reason. Remove the ulterior motive, and you can actually have a friendship. Have a friendship, and you can actually impact people’s lives. It’s for this reason that I say, “Live your faith. Share your life.” And this is what I meant yesterday, when I said:
But it’s worth noting, probably as a ‘cardinal rule’ something repeated in each of the three quotes above. Friendship must be for its own sake, with no ulterior motive. I think that’s how Jesus did it, and it’s why he didn’t seem flustered if someone got healed and went away before he could finish passing out the tracts.
In the 1999 Movie The Big Kahuna, based on the Roger Rueff play Hospitality Suite, there is one of the most poignant examples of the fact that people see right through this falsely extended friendship, and they see it for what it is. Wikipeda’s plot summary:
Kevin Spacey plays Larry Mann, a relentlessly foul-mouthed cynic; Danny DeVito plays Phil Cooper, a world-weary average Joe; and Peter Facinelli is Bob Walker, a devout and earnest young Baptist. The three are industrial lubricant salesmen, sent to land a very important account, a rich businessman they refer to as The Big Kahuna. As the night progresses, Larry unleashes a torrent of scathingly funny witticisms, most directed at Bob, but finds himself relying on the newest member of the trio when their quarry invites Bob (and only Bob) to an exclusive party. While Phil and Larry wait for Bob to bring them the news that could end their careers, they muse over the meaning of life. Bob finally returns and offers a bombshell: rather than try to sell their product, he has instead chosen to talk to the man with deep pockets about…religion. In the face of Larry’s towering outrage, Bob stands fast for all that is pure and true. But Bob is unable to muster any reply at all when Phil quietly explains how he sees no difference at all between Bob’s preaching and Larry’s fast-talking.
Kevin Cawley discusses the movie in more detail, but the particularly poignant moment is when Phil gets down to brass tacks with Bob.
Phil Cooper: It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.’ That doesn’t make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are – just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch. And you’re not a human being; you’re a marketing rep.
It reminds me of the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, with Alec Baldwin berating the sales staff: “A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Closing. Always be closing, always be closing!” We need to be able to present our faith as something more, something far deeper than just a pitch, don’t we? I don’t see Jesus “pitching” people… just loving them and treating them like… well, like people. I never got the feeling that Jesus practised A-B-C. With him, friendship wasn’t a pitch, it was just friendship. It was loving his neighbour. For some of those people who encountered Jesus, this was a novelty, and that’s the subversive nature of the gospel. So are Phil and I overstating the point, or are we really dehumanizing the relationship when we add the baggage of ulterior motives? If we approach people to engage in a “friendship” based on the motive of “witnessing” to them so they become Christians, are we no better than colonialists, pornographers, or ad-pushing pitch-men seeking not what we can put into the relationship, only what we can get out of it?
Have you changed your diet lately or something. Not that your posts haven’t always been good, but these last couple have been particularly good. I’m feeling some blogosphere pressure to write something substantive. (Not hear in the comments, mind you.)
Great stuff, bro.
Thanks, Bill — I’ll try to post some more fluff tomorrow… I need to catch my breath anyway! ;^)
Nah! Leave the fluff to me. It’s my strong suit lately.
Seems to me that the root of our manipulation of friendships into evangelism lies in our fear – our fear that God is not competent enough to draw people to Himself/Herself, and so we need to help poor God out. And since we think we’ve mastered the basics [= saying the sinners’ prayer at least once] we’ll help. A friendship in which one party has ulterior motives is never a true friendship – its disguised coercion, sometimes its sociopathic. What if we let go of the fear that God isn’t up to the task. Simply said, ‘I’m available, God, if you want me to have a significant spiritual conversation with my friend, I’ll try to be honest and real, and I’ll try not to run away.” Whether and when such conversations happen are up to God, up to the dynamic of the friendship. . . Our other fear, though, may be that if we don’t establish alpha-dog spiritual supremacy, our friend’s views may influence ours, maybe our faith won’t be competent enough, so we have to help poor faith out. . .
i am curious about your distinction between dehumanizing and erotic porn. by its nature all porn objectifies women because they (and their sexuality) become a commodity that can be purchased just like a carton of milk or a pack of cigarettes. if a woman’s image is used as an object for erotic purposes (ie for the pleasure and benefit of the consumer) how has her humanity been preserved? it would seem to me that porn by its very nature (whether erotic, fantastical, or violent) is dehumanizing.
I’m thoroughly enjoying these conversations of late. It’s a.g. baby (all good)! You, as well as many of those who’ve commented, have verbalized the cry in my heart. My simple goal in life is to represent the love of Jesus that has captured my heart, my wonder, my imagination… and trust that He loves the people I get to walk along the road with MORE than I do. I can trust Him with the timing in regards to when they respond to his irresistible love. I don’t need to panic and try to “seal the deal”. He’s got it covered. My job is to try to not to #%$#! it up; turning them off by “handling” them. What freedom to just enjoy people simply because God made them.
Well written, and bang on.
However, something to watch for in detoxing from evangelistic objectification: the tendency for those who are freed from the pressure to “pitch Jesus” to everyone around them is that they easily lose sight of what exactly their purpose is in relationship to others. It far too easily becomes just “being nice” because they don’t have a grid for what it means, as a Christian, to really be someone’s friend.
Ahhh … Matt … then the road becomes ever so much more difficult. How does one love another person wholly and unconditionally? We must learn the path of loving with no strings attached. That explicitly does not mean just “being nice” but then we have to redefine what it means to “love our neighbor as ourself.” What is love? How is it expressed? When are those spiritual conversations appropriate and when are they pitches? To me, all of this means that we have the responsibility to be much more keyed into where God would have us and be acting in and through us as we go out into the world.
BTW, Bro. M., you hit this one out of the park!!
Sonja:
I agree whole-heartedly. I think that one of the the subtexts that goes along with so much deconstruction is that it’s supposed to make things easier. For instance, Bro. M. here helps me to feel like friendship is easier, now that I don’t have the need to pitch salvation hanging over my head. (I now that’s not what he’s intending, but this is how it is received by many)
However, I think that we need to, as you say, allow this deconstruction to clear room for the beginning of learning what real love and friendship look like. I also think that we need to be honest that this actually makes things much more difficult.
Actually Matt, I think that is one of the things I intend to say. I was talking this over with my wife at dinner yesterday, and she challenged me to explain what was so different about what I was saying, isn’t it just simply living life?
I talked about how within the Christian-cloister, we too often forget how to relate to “outsiders,” and receive the “encouragement” to witness to our neighbours as something guilt-inducing that derails any chance at genuine relationships. We get down on ourselves if we haven’t invited them to church after the third conversation, and feel inadequate, a poor “witness.” otoh, once we force the issue with them, it can often hinder the future relationship, as your ulterior motives are now clear.
Forgetting the “imperative” to get your neighbour to church, if you just talked to him (or her) like a normal person and let things develop, they will eventually get to know you and the subject of your faith will probably come up at some point… after you’ve got some credibility with them.
Get rid of the guilt! Is it just living life? Maybe… Jesus came that we might have life… and perhaps that works in the “get a life” sense too. Some of us have honestly forgotten how to do this, and the “remedial” help that we’ve talked about in the conversations are a lot about just getting started. A slow gentle start that’s accessible to all of us.
I was planning to leave this series and move onto something else this coming week, but I wonder now if I don’t have another post or two on the subject before I move on… we’ll see how it shapes up.
Bro M. — Great post. For me it boils down to the fact that human beings, and thus relationships with them, are ends in themselves, not means to some other goal. If I only pursue relationship for a purpose (to sell you something, get you saved, etc.), I’ve lost sight of that simple fact.
We discussed this over lunch yesterday, Bro. Maynard, but let me say it again: If we’re only befriending people to convert (sell) them something, then we’re being dishonest and fraudulent. Being a friend means, simply, being a friend. For years. Through good and bad. Listening and being listened to.
Nothing more coercive than that.
But if we never find a moment — in all those years — where a divine (unscripted, un-manipulated) opportunity comes to tell our story (and Jesus’ intersection with it), then we haven’t been a true friend. Although I’m definitely been in favour of being “friends with no strings attached”, and have practiced this for many years, the reality is still this: they need Jesus, and if we don’t at some point talk about that, we have failed to be a real friend. No matter how nice, inoffensive, and uncolonial we may seem.
Can’t help but think that one of the biggest pressures on us all is simply that little four letter word: H-E-L-L. The belief in hell makes the time-crunch intense to introduce Jesus because after all, my friend might die tomorrow and be roasting for eternity. Hell theology seems to necessitate the ABC approach to faith. Interestingly enough, Jesus did not seem to feel that pressure.