Evangelism

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the following about evangelism:

• It isn't something you can opt out of: you just do it, even if you are not a professional.
• Do it, not out of duty, but because you love people.  Love as Jesus loves.
• It isn't about results.  Don't try to count the number of conversions or how instantaneously it happens.
• Remember that it is good news.  It is positive, happy news.
• Trust the Holy Spirit to work.
• Pray.
• Be prepared, that your conversations may only bear fruit after you leave the scene.  Give people time to absorb what has been said.
• Don't complicate things.  Only answer what has been asked.  Keep the message simple to understand.
• Always be ready to give an answer.
• Realise the importance of evangelism.

I think Welby made good points.  When we make evangelism out to be an awkward, professional task, we become awkward and unnatural as we try to present the facts to our friends.   When we do it without love as our motivation, our message does not connect as people question our motives.  We do not want to force people to convert, but to give them the opportunity to accept the grace of our Lord.

Do you think so?  Do you find evangelism awkward to do?  Awkward to be on the receiving end of?  Should evangelism be done at the edge of a sword?

Is evangelism a Christian thing, or does it belong to other people too?

Who complains

The world is afire with revolt, but a new kind of revolt, befitting our young century: The revolt of the middle class.

While their complaints are all different, the specifics only magnify what they have in common: All of these protests and rebellions are being led by comparatively well educated, affluent citizens upset about their government’s violation of liberal principles and the rule of law.

These words, from http://aholeofthecentury.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-revolt-of-middle-class.html, provoked a realisation within me.  It seems that a vital ingredient in the process of democracy lies in having reasonably educated people with sufficient wealth to power the protests of the masses.  People who read and think and feel for the underprivileged, and want to do something to help.

Do you think so?

The minorities would be trodden down, if nobody stood up to defend them.  And when the oppressors are the government voted in by the majority, it takes the power of the voters to get it right again when they realise the harm they have caused.  People who repent of their earlier voting, or who see that the people that they have voted for abusing the power that they have been given.  People who wish to correct the wrong in society.

While the media may influence the thinking of the people, while religious leaders and moral crusaders may tell people what to think and how to vote ... the power ends up with the educated who have enough wealth and muscle pulling the masses with them to voice their protests.

Is this how God works?  Is this how democratic society works?

I think it was so in the days of Jose Rizal in the Philippines.  Of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.  And perhaps several more.  But perhaps there is more to democracy and how the people think and drive their protests than this simple statement.

What do you think?

Persuading/Influencing another

What does it mean to persuade somebody?  Or to influence somebody?

When should we want to influence or persuade another person?  Or to leave that person to make up his own choices without any input from us?

Nesrin Saab spoke at an ACS Project Management SIG tonight.  She explained the following definitions:

• Influencing is getting others to agree with what you want them to agree to.  It is using your behaviour to change the behaviour of somebody else.  Influencing is based on trust.
• Negotiation is when you come to an agreement in a manner of setting or raising a price.  It is not based on behaviour.  It is coming to the right terms in the agreement by lowering or raising the expectations.
• Persuading is like influencing, but it is a one-time effect.  A change in behaviour is not the outcome.  It is just getting somebody to agree with you at the instance of your persuading them.
• Manipulation is different from influence, as manipulation is based on deception rather than trust.

Given these definitions, what should we do about our beliefs?  Should we use them to persuade another?  Or to influence another?  Or just to leave people to believe whatever they want?  Why?

What do you think?

Greed and selfishness

Sheikh tweeted that ""humans biggest downfall is selfishness and greed"".  Would you agree?  Why or why not?

Sam disagreed.  He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.".  What do you think?

Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?

I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed.  It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us.  Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better.  Or we should know better.

Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness".  He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.

So why are we like this, even so?  Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better?  Are some of us better than others?  Who is good enough for God?

What do you think?