Where The Carcass is, The Buzzards Will Gather

I am not sympathetic to street preaching or cold sell evangelism. It is not, according to my understanding, a part of what it means to be making disciples. Though doing it may be a part of what it means for someone to be growing as a disciple. That's possible. Still, I just can't do it.

It is often dependent on facile word games or invalid and untenable premises. It sets up the Gospel as a matter of assent to an abstract proposition rather than living or virtue. It strikes me as arrogant and in line with the worst aspects of religious expression regardless of tradition.

That said, it is very straightforward and, in a sense, honest. So, it's got that going for it. If one believes that the only way a person can avoid an eternity of post-mortem torture and anguish is by giving assent to a certain proposition then the least one should do is tell as many people as they can how to avoid that torture. If you believe that the person ahead of you in line, your mother, the guy in the crosswalk, your coworker, et al. are bound to an eternity of inconceivable punishment if they do not hear about their sin and then accept Jesus Christ, then you would be a pretty big jerk if you didn't tell them all about that. It's not very different from standing idly by as a bus comes speeding down the highway and it is only a matter of moments before they are killed, but you say nothing. If you have the knowledge that can save them and you don't share it, then it seems like you have a part in their death. And we say hell would be worse than being hit by a bus.

It seems, someone that doesn't share this knowledge is far worse than the person who doesn't know any better. How could you not spend every waking moment warning people? How could you even sleep knowing hell was in store for everyone? How could anything not directly a warning about the coming hell not be a vanity? The least you would have to do is offer a warning if not a clear means of rescue.

It would seem a Christian who believes this but didn't share it would be the most detestable thing there could be.

I don't buy the premises though. Of course for some, these are not merely premises one can accept or not. These premises are, for some, "just the way things are" and I have clearly rejected that. My saying I do not buy the premises may simply be a result of cowardice and laziness. That may simply be how I reconcile my belief that I am a Christian with the fact that I do not go around telling everyone how to avoid spending eternity being boiled in a lake of fire. And, for others this may be the very point that shows I am not a Christian.

That's fine I guess. I don't know how I could accept something I can't accept. If the only options are to believe those premises or not. I do not. If it follows from that that I am bound to an eternity of torture, that's out of my hands- which I suppose fits with a sense of faith that puts everything into God's metaphorical hands. I have not been given whatever must be necessary to believe the premises so I can't believe them. That all seems to fit together nicely and what's life for if not making sure everything fits together with a perfectly nice sense of certainty and security?

So there's that. I am willing to admit that I may, according to a certain set of premises, be hell bound even though I claim to be some sort of disciple of Jesus. It seems there ought to be more like me: people who claim to be Christians but are condemned by their laziness. Take a look at some of the statements of faith of various groups- mostly evangelical groups. It's mostly evangelical groups that make it a point of necessity to give statements of faith. You'll find that they almost invariably say something like: We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

Of course there is often some wiggle room in these statements. "We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential" doesn't tell you how that regeneration occurs so perhaps one is not inevitably on the "get into the streets" hook. So maybe we need not be so concerned with warning people of hell. Maybe there is some other way for the not-knowing to become the knowing.

But for those on the hook we see clearly that their faith is in what they do. What they are able to say about their faith is plainly in their actions. That is their statement. That's important to see. What we do follows from what we accept as necessary. Evangelicals do something similar, even if they aren't on the hook for their statements. That is, the act of abstracting one's "faith" into statements that stand apart from one's life is itself an act that says something about one's faith- the evangelical need to put things into abstract propositions that may or may not have an expression in a community is itself an expression of that community's faith. That is, "Making The Statement" is an act integral to evangelicalism- even if what one thinks ought to follow from those statements is absent. That is the "what we say" in line with the "what we do".

We have statements on all manner of things and the statement is sufficient because making the statement is the life (though that alienates living from one's life). It seems to me that it is an attempt to give the statement a life that the body doesn't have. When we can't say, "See how we live", we must resort to "Refer to what I said." It is much like the task of correctly describing a frog- dead, flayed and pinned open on a tar tray. It's certainly a frog though there's not much more to do with a frog in that condition. And describing the frog is certainly an act that is done that says something about what one thinks ought to be done.

Unfortunately, a community oriented about the correct labeling and use of statements is as much a church as a dissected frog specimen is a frog; when the needs of living encounter either, both will be found lacking.