BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The commission in Matthew 28 says, "Teaching them to observe all I've commanded you," so please tell me Jesus's statements that one is to teach using the power of silence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible to proselytize from a place of humility?
- Thread starter A Vestigial Mote
- Start date
The commission in Matthew 28 says, "Teaching them to observe all I've commanded you," so please tell me Jesus's statements that one is to teach using the power of silence.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
When Jesus says to let your light so shine before men, do you think he's talking about standing on the corner and proclaiming your beliefs and righteousness loudly before men? Doesn't he teach you should not blast the trumpet to declare your piousness so others can see, but rather to go into your closet which is in secret where you build your relationship to God? (Matthew 6:5 ff). How consistent is that with the story of Elijah, where he was looking for the Lord and saw a great wind pass by, then a great earthquake, and then a great fire, but God was not in any of those, but rather in a "still small voice"?
I'd say the principle is very much there in these couple quick examples, and rightly so, even though the words are not explicitly stated as I put them. The truth of it is there regardless, both in a general understanding, and in actual lived experience by countless other saints and sages throughout the ages, both within the Christian tradition and other world religions. Not every truth must be spelled out in those exact words in the highly limited words of Jesus that managed to be added to the bibles we have today. The truth of it is there nonetheless.
Ever try to hear a sparrow's song in the middle of a blaring rock concert? Another example, "Don't tell me that you love me. Show me." More often than not, not saying any words speaks a million times lounder that complete volumes of texts of ideas and thoughts and teachings. When I feel God move through my soul, it's not because of some mental concept I'm holding in mind, not some idea, not some teaching. While those may inspire, they are not the Source. They are expressions of the Source, and it is the Source I hear, not the words themselves.
And how exactly do you think people are drawn to the Truth? Because you've put together a nifty little "case for Christ"?Hardly. That's not at all how these things work. People may hear words, but they respond to Love. Love doesn't need words. You can say nothing, and just your presence alone, if filled with God, is the communication itself, louder than any words can ever hope to accomplish. It is effortless.
"The heavens declare the Glory of God, the sky proclaims his handiwork. Day unto day, utters speech. Night unto night proclaims Knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out into all the earth." (Psalms 19) "The invisible things of him through Creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20)
Where are the words and ideas of man in this, pointing the way to God? Yet, before there was even language, God is manifest and "clearly seen and made known". How? Can you communicate Truth without words? God can. If you can't, then it's not God you are communicating, but rather reflections of your personal thoughts and ideas about God. While interesting, they aren't Truth. They are reflections of you as another person trying to find God. On the other hand, when we are silent, then God can speak.
The problem is, as you wrote,
"I'd say the principle is very much there in these couple quick examples, and rightly so, even though the words are not explicitly stated as I put them."
What is explicit are statements of Jesus and the apostles commanding preaching and proselytization.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I agree with some of what you wrote.
I differ in a few places, for example "killing the other children was frustration," when it had to with the universally recognized law of reciprocity. Do you believe God, who is very patient, absolutely forgets wholesale slaughter?
You certainly do need verifiable proof of an invisible God. Ask and you will receive such proof.
If the requirement were that everything was explicitly stated in order to be believed and practiced, you'd have an enormously limited religion. I could doubtless find plenty of examples of things you believe and practice that are not explicitly taught in scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity? Where in the Bible does the word Trinity occur? In fact, where in the Bible does the word Bible occur? To demand that of others when you yourself do not adhere to that as a requirement, would be hypocritical.
But to your point, that Jesus said we should "preach", where does it explicitly say that all Christians are to be preachers and proclaimers? What I see in the Great Commission, is him talking to his 11 apostles, not the general congregation. Are you one of the 11 disciples that Jesus explicitly said this to? No? Then why are you adding to scripture and saying all Christians need to preach? Does the Apostle Paul say this?
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body."
Why are you adding to scripture when it explicitly states that not everyone has the same gifts? Why are you demanding against scripture that all Christians go out and evangelize others?12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body."
Again, my post, which you just glossed over without consideration, goes into some depth of how that non-words, actually speak louder that all the so-called "case for Christ" nonsense that comes out of evangelical apologist schools of thought. You don't see any actual truth to what I said, or are you just being stubborn?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think there’s a nuance here I’d like to stretch out a bit, if you don’t mind. According to The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, a “proselyte” is “one who has come to a place.” IOW, one who has converted to Judaism, according to its usage in Acts.
According to the same source, “proselytization” is “the practice of seeking others to become adherents of one’s faith.”
On the surface, that might seem to bolster your definition above. But “seeking” and “selling” are two different activities. And we have to consider what “faith” is being talked about.
In Matt. 26, Jesus patently was not telling his disciples to go out and convert all people to Christianity. There was no Christianity at that point, nor was there yet a church. The whole theological crux of Matthew is blending the “them” with the “us.” We see it in the parable of the wheat and weeds, and the sheep and goats. The Great Commission was to go out and tear down fences. That’s the faith that is being presented to others: That we’re all one family.
If I go out and find someone who’s different and tell them, “I accept you as you are, fences aren’t real,” that’s giving someone who’s trapped by fences good news. It’s seeking for them to not believe in fences. If I tell them, “Jesus is the only way,” that’s only building more fences.
So it’s important to consider what we’re pesuading folks to do. Selling them on doctrine is selling them on doctrine. Persuading them to a new way of living together is seeking them to come to faith, and is proselytization.
That’s a difference worth noting — at least from a theological perspective. And that is, by nature, a humble act, because it builds equity between people.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
“Go and do likewise.”
Etymology is not definition.
And every other source I can find uses terms like "recruiting," "attempting to convert," "persuading," "inducing someone to convert," etc.
While the term "seeking" can have a range of meanings, I'm not going to accept that the author of that entry in your theological dictionary intended the word in a sense that's completely at odds with every other dictionary I can find as well as common usage.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Sharing a religious belief is not proselytizing unless there is an intent to convert.
Since only the person doing the sharing knows what their intent is, it is disrespectful to accuse people of proselytizing, especially AFTER that say they have no intent to convert anyone.
Of course if they actually SAY that their religion is the "only way" and you should believe in their religion or you will go to hell, as Christians often tell me, that might be construed as proselytizing.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It also reflects arrogance.... ** I ** have something that you need.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You’re missing the point.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
One doesn’t always need to lecture in order to teach. Many times, the best teaching is by example.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
the word comes directly from Greek, and it’s used in Acts. Etymology is, indeed, basic to finding a definition.
I might suggest that your other sources don’t approach the term theologically, which would only make sense, since it’s a theological term.
I’m saying that, as originally intended in the context, there really was nothing to convert to, so it could not have meant that, from a Christian perspective. I’d argue that a proselyte experiences more of a change of heart than a change of belief or affiliation. There’s a dimension to the term that’s not being taken under consideration in the debate. When that dimension is considered, then proselytization is, by definition, a humble undertaking.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I agree, certainly. The churches I've affiliated with look to character in leaders as above seminary or secular education.
I agree 100%. Now, if you would, please show me from the scriptures where the gospel is to be proselytized with the power of silence, since as I think about both testaments, I keep finding proclaiming prophets and demonstrative preachers.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I do not believe in the trinity.
It says specifically to preach and proclaim in a number of places, including the Great Commission, where every apostle was to teach others to do what Christ did, including, of course, preaching and proselytizing, and the Timothys, where people teach people who teach people who teach people, and Ephesians, where every believer has a gift of teaching or prophesy or apostleship or evangelism or shepherding, all of which demand verbal and/or written instruction, etc.
***Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.***
Per the above, I see:
*A MESSAGE of wisdom to be transmitted to others
*A MESSAGE of knowledge " "
*Faith
*Healing, which is accompanied in the gospels by verbal words
*Prophesying aloud
*SPEAKING in tongues
*EXPLAINING tongues
*Etc.
So that "the gospel of silence" strains credulity. Further, why are you TELLING me to change how I proselytize? Why not simply show me in silence the correct manner of proselytization?
Now, I AGREE with you that nonverbals and actions can be louder than words, sometimes. But here's where verbals often trump other kinds of communication:
*Prayer
*Courts of law
*Human relationships
How are you understanding Romans, that says to trust in your heart and confess with your mouth?
The English word "proselytize" was not used by the author of Acts, and there have been almost 2000 years of usage change since Acts was written anyway.
Are you also going to argue that my phone's camera isn't a camera because it doesn't have a "chamber" or "room," or that Alexa and Siri don't use language because they don't have tongues? If you're going to narrowly focus on etymology, those are the sorts of conclusions that would be implied.
So "theological" terms obey different rules than the whole rest of language?
The meaning of a term is determined by its usage. The common usage of the word "proselytize" refers to an attempt to convert or persuade. If you want evidence, just look through this thread to see many examples of people using the the term in that sense with no resulting confusion at all. The only one suggesting a different definition is you.
This implies that proselytizing isn't Christian, not that proselytizing - which is not a term that Christianity has any sort of exclusive claim over - means something differrent.
Usage of one word in first- and second- century Christian communities speaking languages like Greek, Latin and Aramaic is irrelevant to usage of even a related word in modern English. Even Old English didn't exist until centuries after the Bible was written.
If the change of belief isn't there - whatever led to it - then they aren't proselytes.
What dimension is that?
Keep in mind that I'm using the word "proselytization" in the normal sense, and if you try to redefine the word again, I'll take whatever you say to be about something else and not about proselytization.
Interesting. Are you part of the JW's or a group often referred to as "Oneness" or "Jesus only" pentecostals? Those are the only two major groups I am aware of which are non-Trinitarian.
Aside from that, my point was that not everything that Christians believe and practice is spelled out explicitly in scripture, and that was just one example. While you say you reject the Trinity formulation, I can guarantee you not everything you believe and practice is spelled out explicitly in scripture. We are sort of left to interpret what it means to us. To have something spelled out explicitly, sort of defeats the purpose to developing maturity. It's maturity, not beliefs, that are the measure of truth in someone. What I may say may be absolutely true, while it's never mentioned in scripture. I think to say never think beyond scripture, is the best way to keep them immature in faith.
I'm sorry, I'm reading the opposite here. It says explicitly, that not everyone has the same gifts. Can you cite a passage that says all followers are to preach?
Yes, "and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines," meaning, not everyone has the same gifts. That's the whole purpose of the passage. No Christian should be telling other Christians they "should" be doing this thing or that thing. For some Christians, their path is a vow of silence. Being told they have to preach, is counter to that.
Sure, let your light so shine before men. That says nothing about preaching. It's about "being" a light, in however that manifest in whatever form.
Same as above.
Everyone is to have faith, but that's not preaching.
Or not verbal words at all. The woman touched Jesus in a crowd and was healed. No words were exchanged. To which he told her, that it was not he who did it, but it was her faith that did it. No preaching required.
That is a specific gift that not everyone has, but one which Paul says we should seek. But the gift of professing is not the same thing at all as someone standing up and preaching their beliefs. No comparison at all. It's much more akin to say a musician playing from a place of deep inspiritaion, except in words, like a poet. Not everyone does this, according to that passage you quoted.
There is no way that glossolalia should be confused with "preaching". Talking in tongues is ecstatic speech in a state of religious ecstacy. It's not preaching. (And don't try to quote Acts 2 to tell me it is.
) Paul explicitly discourages that in the congregation because it does not build up others. It only benefits the one doing it, he says.Again, this isn't preaching. And in all honestly, I don't believe there is a Christian alive who actually knows what Paul was referencing. There are a lot of groups that think they understand based on how they think it looked like, but that is speculation, and then just mimicry of that speculation in practice in their churches where someone enters into a state of ecstatic speech, and then some congregate stands up, typically speaking in King James English, interestingly enough, and says things they think God is saying such as, "Thus saith the Lord, I have heard your prayers and will send you a bountiful harvest in due season," etc, etc. etc.
That is all very interesting, but that is not preaching either.
Hardly. You think when Jesus says to let your light shine, he means preaching? How do you imagine you would fulfill Jesus' command? If you can't say it with silence, you sure as hell can't say it with words!
I am not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. You were arguing that all Christians should try to proselytize others, that it is a commandment to them for everyone to preach. I say that isn't true.
For you to express the gift of God you have in silence, is your path. I would recommend practicing meditation to help show you how you should for yourself inhabit that in yourself. Blathering words about beliefs, without that core of Silence at the center of ones being, is just our egos on parade carrying God banners to deceive ourselves with. Truth can speak for itself, without our words mucking it all up.
In verbal communication, in all cases, it is what is not said, nonverbal communication that is heard above all else. Someone can say they love me all day, but if I don't feel the truth of that coming from them, then it's not coming from a place of Truth.
Prayer is an exercise for yourself, not for the benefit of others. And prayer is best when it is silent. It is just the pure state of the heart laid bare before God. God doesn't care about your words. They mean something only to you and your mind, in the place where it is still mistaken it matters. Knowing occurs with the heart, not as a result of deductive conclusions of the mind piecing together logic statements.
Obviously language has its place in human socities, included ecomonic and legal activities. This has nothing to do with the Truth of God spoken to the hearts of man. God is not a legal entity.
The best communication in relationship is nonverbal. Blathering on and on with the mind filling volumes of words throughout the day, is ultimately a distraction from such simply being at Rest in the arms of Love. This is what holds relationships together, not us blathering on about our ideas. Those are interesting, but ultimately just ornamentations about something profoundly more essential than that. To look into the others eyes and simply "know" without words, is ten billion times more Truthful.
How would you read that if you were mute and could not use your mouth?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the crux of the matter. The Greek term, from which the English term is derived, is used. Its definition in that context is as I posted. Most modern Christians would use the Bible to justify their acts of proselytization even though the Bible does not direct us to sell the Christian faith. What the Moderns are doing is an act of hubris. My point is that, if one proselytizes as the act was biblically meant, it would be an act of humility, because it wouldn’t be selling the faith. When we proselytize in the modern sense, we aren’t engaging in proselytization as the Bible teaches, or as the biblical writers understood the term. Since, however, most carry out the act because “the Bible tells us to do that,” they should adhere to the biblical, not the modern meaning.
Thank you.
And you understand that everyone else in this thread is using the word “in the modern sense,” right?
Maybe it would help communication and understanding if you just imagine the words “in the modern sense” whenever anyone else says “proselytize.”
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That’s why I brought it up. No one’s really talking about what the Bible means by the term, yet they’re pointing to the Bible as verification for something they should do.
You didn’t bring it up. You just started using the term in your own special way without telling people that you weren’t using it to mean what everyone else in the thread meant.
It was only after I pointed out that what you were saying didn’t make sense with the normal meaning of the word that we tried to figure out what you did mean... and even then, it took you a few pages to finally admit that the contemporary meaning of the word was different from the one you were using.
Yeah... about that. Now that we have semantic disagreements out if the way: this is one of the few areas where @BilliardsBall and I agree. It seems bizarre that you would point to a book full of examples of people winning converts by preaching to crowds or convincing them by speaking to them one-on-one, and these acts being held up as praiseworthy, to try to support your argument that Christians shouldn’t do these things.