Why I Evangelize
on Atheist Groups

Posted to talk.atheism on July 24, 1996

Having been dismayed by some of the more recent and ferocious attempts at evangelism on talk.atheism, I thought I would examine what I consider to be Christian evangelism, why I engage in it, and why I believe talk.atheism to be an appropriate place for it.

First, Christian evangelism is sharing one's faith in Jesus Christ with others.

How one goes about evangelism will be linked to what one considers to be faith in Jesus Christ. And for me, faith in Jesus Christ is - in a practical sense - a global value judgment I make on the goodness of natural reality (including the reality of other people) in which we live - a goodness which I believe to be based not in itself, but in the supernatural God who created it.

And because this value judgment is based on a supernatural revelation - that is, on something other than reason or objective evidence - it is called faith. (If it COULD be conclusively established through reason or objective evidence, it would be called knowledge, not faith).

Now, because I believe that ALL people are created through Jesus Christ, I therefore believe that ALL people - whether Christian or not - can mediate the presence of God in this world - whether they know or appreciate their vocation or not.

Therefore, the only particular " advantage" I have in a discussion with atheists or agnostics is that I am aware of (on my best days) the presence and activity of God in a situation while they are not.

That is different from saying that I (as a Christian) mediate the presence and activity of God while they (as atheists and agnostics) do not.

It is also different from sayingg that I (as a Christian) hav some sort of superior moral insight into the structure of society and its laws that non-Christians lack. Christians, IMHO, have no privileged access to the judgment of God regarding (e.g.) abortion, homosexuality, the role of religion in public schools, welfare reform, or the involvement of the United States in foreign affairs.

It is yet again different from saying that I (as a Christian) have a set of doctrines that one must believe to be saved. God, IMHO, no more requires a person to pass a theology exam in order to be saved than nature requires one to pass a physics exam to fall off a chair.

I HAVE doctrines, and I believe some doctrines - in the context of the rules and discipline of theology - more adequately express the nature of Christian experience than other doctrines. Just as the theory of gravity - in the context of the rules and discipline of physics - more adequately expresses experience than the theory that planets move in circles because circles are perfect.

But I do not believe that correct doctrine saves or incorrect doctrine damns - or I'd never have mustered the courage to study theology in the first place :-)

So...

If evangelism is sharing a global value judgment I make on the God-given goodness of reality, then why do I share this faith?

Because it's who I am.

Everything I say or do comes out of what I believe to be real. And if I am an authentic person than whatever I say must - explicitly or implicitly - reveal what I believe to be true - whether I am a Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, or anything else.

So why engage in evangelism on talk.atheism?

Why not engage in it on rec.pets.dachshunds? Or some other group?

Well, if I read rec.pets.dachshunds and it seemed appropriate - in the context of a discussion - to explicitly share my faith, then I would.

But, probably because I do not believe that one must acknowledge or live up to a certain moral code to be saved, or that one must believe certain Christian doctrines to be saved, I do not feel that someone's salvation is imperiled if I do not sneak Jesus Christ into a discussion on the relative merits of dachshunds vs. other dogs as house pets.

[" ...Dachshunds tend to bond to one person, as compared to Labradors who bond to the entire family (and, of course, Jesus, who bonds to the entire human race)..." :-]

Maybe the problem in talk.atheism is that, unlike rec.pets.dachshunds, the subject of God and/or Jesus Christ seems to come up fairly frequently.

Most of my posts on Christian topics in this newsgroup are responses to others. I will usually respond when I read a post from an atheist or agnostic that follows (IMHO) the form, " One should not be a Christian (or theist) because Christianity (or theism) is 'X'" , when I believe 'X' to be either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding - subtle or blatant.

And while some of those posts I respond to result from one of my more zealous brethren opening the door by posting an " Atheists are stupid and immoral" thread, many come from atheists or agnostics who are truly interested in the beliefs of others different from themselves - as I am interested in the beliefs of others different from myself.

When I do start my own thread, I attempt to explore the relationship between theism and atheism in a neutral tone conducive to two-way communication. Or - when I really feel the need to promote a topic from a partisan Christian perspective - I label the thread either TAN or REL.

In any event, I attempt to post within the guidelines of the group's charter and as one at least conversant with the *.atheism FAQ.

Maybe we Christians should not take the differences between Christians and atheists/agnostics so seriously. From a Christian POV, the major dualism is between God and humanity, not between believers and unbelievers.

And I personally suspect that a Christian who does not admit that there are times in their lives when they are indistinguishable in belief, thought and action from atheists or agnostics is a Christian who is fooling him or herself.

And if any of my Christian brethren doubt that, I suggest that they ask the people in their lives to whom they are closest if that is not the case.

Return to top of page.

Return to Apologetics page.

Return to Archive

Return to The Inclusive Christian

Bill Bekkenhuis

Return to top of page.