• Anonymys
    117
    Throughout Evangelism After Pluralism: The Ethics of Christian Witness, Bryan Stone critiques the traditional understanding of evangelism and presents a few key points: a) that differences between individuals still warrant respectful dialogue, b) evangelism should not be competitive in nature, and c) competing loyalties should be avoided at all costs. He lays the foundation of his arguments on the notion that the modern world is mainly comprised of three dominating characteristics: "empire, nation, and market.." (p.12) and that it is the unity of these characteristics that have led to the erosion of Christian life and the ability to bear effective witness to the gospel (pg. 12). Stone gives the reader a dichotomous portrayal of Christian living, declaring that it is either pluralistic or unified and implies that it is precisely the mere existence of multiple expressions of Christian living that render Christians into believing comparison and judgment are required to proclaim the gospel, which He states "diminish[es] …. respect for…. [the] other "and distorts the good news" (pg. 12).
    Stone claims that the ethical foundation for traditional evangelism is focused on "conquering, defending, securing, and grasping" but should instead encompass "self-emptying, gratuitous, and pacifist" (pg. 140). The author recognizes that evangelism should have little to do with conversion and instead proposes a "witness oriented evangelism" (pg. 24), stating that "evangelism is not an attempt to produce conversions in the first place" (pg. 17). Furthermore, Stone proses that the dualism of evangelism and social action contain overwhelming problems that need to be addressed to understand the interaction between testimony and ministry better. He states that the "gospel is a new way of life" and salvation cannot be "passively received" but instead that evangelism should be equitable to a living ethics (pg. 9).
    Stone then discusses the issue of empire and civil citizenship, stating the impossibility of proclaiming the gospel without being corrupted by the "influences of the imperial witness," referencing the portrayal of traditional evangelism stated previously. He describes interfaith dialogue as similar to a consumer's market, indicating that evangelism of old in a pluralistic environment is simply a way to make religion attractive to those willing to buy in or be duped into religion. The author describes his distress that evangelism after pluralism is constructed by "imposing the plurality of religions [to the] unity of the marketplace" (pg. 88), implying that the "marketplace rationality" of individual choice requires religion and its traditions to be promoted simply as basic commodities (pg. 91). He argues that this "culture" has been implemented into the church through a culture of "violence, war-making, and coercion" (pg. 76) and defends the idea that pluralism must go deeper "without accepting the terms of competition" (pg. 112).
    Stone finished off by stating the difficulties in contextual pluralistic religions of other faith traditions and argues that plurality must be diverse in faith in order give witness to "what God has revealed to the world in Israel, Christ, and the church as the body of Christ is a way of living together-a rich tapestry of social patterns, habits, and practices that…reveal the beauty of God" (pg. 131). He condemns the conversion-based tradition of evangelism as a marketplace and instead portrays evangelism as inseparable from God's grace and to resist the temptation of consumerism and the imperial hold over worship, evangelism, and the ethics of religious conversion.
    I believe that Pieris had only hoped to describe when discussing the ineffectiveness of the western missions and the problems surrounding interfaith dialogue, especially when discussing salvation via redemption. While Pieris describes the necessity of experiencing liberation, it is only through promoting justice and liberation without faith missing the difficulties in contextual pluralistic religions and faith traditions that Stone conveys. However, Pieris and Stone do acknowledge that context alone is insufficient as a model for "religion" and can instead serve as a way of understanding the "market" through which religion is "bought and "sold." Similarly, Adler might agree that interfaith dialogue as, evangelism currently stands, has prevented the growth of any true heartfelt conviction, perhaps even calling it "taste." Stone and Adler may agree that "religious faith can neither be proved nor established as true" (Adler, pg. 103) but evangelism incorporating "self-emptying, gratuitous, and pacifism" (Stone, pg. 12) may lead to a form of witnessing truthful to the gospel.

    Throughout Stone’s book it is apparent that he is writing for individuals already familiar with the specific topics/themes at hand. However, His deconstruction throughout the book of key terms was greatly appreciated and while a bit officious, he writes with great depth and conviction.
    Alongside Stone’s thorough deconstruction it is clear to the audience that Stone has gone out of his way to be inclusive of individuals coming from a great many starting points, especially when it comes to discussions of Western empire, evangelism, ethics, consumerism, and each of their roles in the Western Christian context. I greatly appreciate Stone’s insight into the premises of ethics concerning results-based evangelism namely, the influences of consumerism, marketplace rationality and religious colonization. While Stone is clear in His focus on Christian Ethics, I feel as though Stone’s idea of morality and what it means to be a moral Christian can be implied through His discussion surrounding some key components of evangelism (pg. 10).
    Similarly, while I will critique some aspect of this later, Stone’s writing almost seems to require an active audience rather than a single reader. Each of his points are so linear in their conclusions that with incorporation of voices from the margins (lol) many of his premises can be greatly expounded and understood through communal dialogue.
    I agree with Stone’s main premise that Evangelism as seen in the past simply does not provide individuals with the tools to receive the “good news.” His thesis is clear in stating that he hopes to continue to build relationships even throughout disagreement and does not want evangelism to equate to conversion. His premises in this regard are sound and his arguments are effective in portraying this thesis. I also enjoy his implication that evangelism has no requirements, no need for preaching, no need for convincing but instead simply living life as a witness to the gospel. There is no doubt that living a life of Christ and speaking about a life of Christ are vastly separated and I’m glad Stone does such a great job in clarifying those differences. Stone’s desire to move away from simply spoken rituals and move instead toward living a faithful life “grounded in the habits disciplines, stories… as the body of Christ before a watching world” (pg. 9) is something that all Christians should keep in mind.

    Stone's continued use of ultimatums and either/or arguments poses a great task to the reader. Without much effort, the reader may be forced to Either accept Stone's premises regarding evangelism as wholesome, complete, and accurate or throw away Stone's argument entirely. His form of argument may be useful in a logic class whereby an Antecedent and Consequent must be affirmed or denied in a specific manner as to not agitate the gods of logic; however, when discussing witnessing, evangelism, and the gospel, it is the very nature of diversity and pluralism that require room for interpretation. That being said, Stone's fallibility is his strength as a reader willing to view his dichotomous arguments as extreme may be willing to live in the middle ground between them while using Stone's framework as a guide rather than law.
    Time and time again, Stone left the reader a bit out of pocket concerning specific events or context/knowledge-dependent explanations. For example, Stone uses pluralism and unity a few times to describe similar premises and fails to distinguish some of the direct influences of the or "imperialism" on evangelism. Similarly, Stone discards the idea of "impirialism" completely without recognizing its usefulness or necessity (missing context as well).
    Additionally, readers must accept that entering into this book; there are vague references and some confusing arguments without the proper context, which Stone does not always provide. Most notably, in chapters 5 and 6, while addressing the context of religious, military pluralism, Stone provides argument points as someone familiar with the issues to readers unfamiliar with the few phenomena presented.
    Throughout the reading of Stone's book, I am often brought back to my childhood in the Spanish church whereby "evangelism" can be seen through the proclamations and warnings of Daniel and Revelations, of late nights filled with testimonies calling the youth into the church sphere and the older generations to compel their grandchildren back into the church. I remember the fear in the pastors eyes while discussing the diminishing numbers within the church and the forced tears as he gave his testimony… Stone discusses the ethics of evangelism but does not provide a framework when it comes to witnessing. Stone fails to recognize that testimony and witness have called "corporate evangelism" to the front line. Which "witness" will impact the most people? Which "witness" and which "testimony" secures the reproduction of faith such that at the end of the night, those in favor of witnessing will also be compelled to "witness" to others? Who will be compelled to evangelize? Who will spread the word of the gospel if not those who have already been witness? Stone dismisses the traditional understanding of evangelism in this sense but fails to recognize that evangelism without proclamation of the good news is simply a lifestyle choice and thus cannot be separated from one faith tradition to the next, only religious tradition. Action alone is ambiguous and readily interpreted through the eyes of the witness. Undoubtedly, the dismissal of verbal proclamation evangelism as a necessary form of evangelism is why he fails to identify and discriminate between Unity and pluralism completely. Because without stated separation, the difference between Unity and pluralism is no longer choice but perspective.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k


    Which "witness" and which "testimony" secures the reproduction of faith such that at the end of the night, those in favor of witnessing will also be compelled to "witness" to others?

    Witness and testimony cannot be connected to faith. All these three concepts are contradictory to each other. Faith comes from the point that you believe in something so blindly. You (supposedly) do not need any kind of proof because "God" and Jesus Christ already exist. I mean, you as a believer, start with the fundamental principle that they do exist and this is why you believe in Christianity and their dogma.
    Asking for a "witness" or a "testimony" could be risky. You see these actions as a root of securing the potential of Christianity. But, I would not be that sure. Trying to spread the image of Christ through their testimony could be an act of impose or "imperialistic" as Bryan Stone tried to explain. A practice that most of the Western empires promoted back in the day when they "discovered" the new lands in America or Oceania. Building a church and then teaching the Christian dogma.
    This issue could end up in an interesting vicious question: If the testimonial or witness of Christ is not solid enough... Should I be able to doubt his existence?

    All of these debates about faith are more simplistic than you theists think. You just believe or not believe. Simple. This is what faith is all about. I believe this because I do so, without any witnesses.
  • Angelo Cannata
    330
    Witness and testimony cannot be connected to faithjavi2541997

    This is a misunderstanding of how witness and testimony are meant in the context of Christianity. They are not meant like objective or scientific evidence, they are not meant like an instrument that, once you have it, you don’t need faith because you have the evidence of witness.

    Moreover, faith in the context of Christianity does not come just from a spontaneous decision to believe in God:
    Faith comes from the point that you believe in something so blindlyjavi2541997

    Faith in Christianity is meant like a chain: there is an experience given by God and this experience is transmitted by those who decide to communicate their subjective experience. Witness in Christianity is exactly like witness of beauty given by artists: their witness doesn’t prove anything, because art is a subjective experience. Nonetheless, it works very effectively in the world of humanity, if we consider how many artworks are considered art masterpieces all over the world. Like you need artists in order to be involved into the passion for art, and this way artists work as witnesses of art, the same way you need other believers who work as witnesses, in order for you to be involved in faith. In this process, faith is anyway necessary, because, as I said, this kind of witness has nothing to do with the scientific kind of evidence.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k
    Witness in Christianity is exactly like witness of beauty given by artists: their witness doesn’t prove anything, because art is a subjective experience.Angelo Cannata

    I think we are, somehow, saying similar things. I wanted to mean that a witness or "believer" doesn't need to prove anything because they start with the basic point that God already exists. This is why I have said they seem to believe so blindly.
    It is true that there were some theists or philosophers around the history that wanted to prove the existence of God (Aquinas).
    They just believe it. Simple.

    In this process, faith is anyway necessary, because, as I said, this kind of witness has nothing to do with the scientific kind of evidence.Angelo Cannata

    We have here two different aspects. This is why faith and witness are not connected each other. Faith comes from a subjective nature. You have faith in X and their existence and dogma, etc... because you need a subterfuge to believe in something or finding a worthy path in this life.
    But... witness and evidence are there and doesn't matter if you "believe" or "not believe".
    For example: the basic evidence that Pluto does exist. There is big evidences about this dwarf planet. You cannot say here "you don't have faith about Pluto's existence" because it literally exists thanks to evidence.
    But it is different towards God... you believe in this subterfuge thanks to faith. You believe when there are not proofs of the existence itself.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I believe this because I do so, without any witnesses.javi2541997

    Basically Fideism: Belief sans Evidence (witnesses).

    We can argue the point i.e. we can craft an argument to prove fideism as a live option in re belief. That blows my mind! There is evidence to believe that (sometimes) we must believe without evidence!

    Take that Pembroke scholars! — Evelyn Carnahan

    Oddly, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, all did offer proof despite the fact that their religions revolve around the antithesis faith. This was achieved by performing miracles despite the criminal connotation it has of breaking laws. I guess these dudes were tryin' to get the best of both worlds (a syncretism, something I suggested in another thread, of faith and reason).
  • Angelo Cannata
    330
    hey start with the basic point that God already exists.javi2541997

    The dynamics of faith is supposed to be slightly different: in Christian theology the decision to believe is never the first step. The first step is always attributed to God, who makes the initiative of giving an experience. Then the believer decides that that experience is enough to decide to believe in God. Then the believer can decide to be a witness to other people.
  • alan1000
    175
    Ma foi! Tamade! Oi vei! this is the second time this evening that Agent Smith has anticipated my own comment... could it be that there is another
  • alan1000
    175
    ... contributor whose intelligence is equal to my own?
  • Pie
    1k
    Witness in Christianity is exactly like witness of beauty given by artists: their witness doesn’t prove anything, because art is a subjective experience.Angelo Cannata

    For some perhaps, and this might sketch an ideal witnessing, but I can't help but think of the evangelists I tend to see in the world these days...aggressive types who want to argue about atheism, embarrassingly combative, conspicuously unenlightened. Recently I was handed a pamphlet with all the symbols of world religions and caption that they can't all be right. True, sir, true. But they can all be wrong.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.