Speaking at the TOC year in review, Miss Braema Mathi tells of her encounter with a religious group that showed up at her doorstep with the intention of spreading its gospel.
Her opinion is that they should not have knocked on her door, as it was evident that she had identified herself as a Hindu with a picture of a Hindu deity on her front door. In her words, “How dare they?” It was, according to her, a deliberate intrusion of her personal space (“it’s my door”) and even though she told them politely (“did you not see the picture?”) that she wasn’t interested, one can’t help but wonder: Was her reaction absolutely necessary? Let’s assess the situation.
Beginning with the evangelists, what exactly were their intentions? Evangelism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Current English as “the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness”. Essentially, an evangelist who doesn’t preach is redundant – like a water bottle with its bottom cut out. Therefore, it should be safe to assume that their intention was to offer people insights into their beliefs.
Carrying on from there, were those intentions good or bad? Should we assume that these evangelists are manipulative, with intention to wage an unspoken religious war against “the others”? Or do we give them the benefit of the doubt, and concur that their desire to spread what they perceive as good news is purely borne out of goodwill.
I’ve dealt with my share of evangelists, and it always amazes me how wholeheartedly they believe in their religions. Despite my overwhelming cynicism, it is difficult to conceive of them having ill intentions, even if I disagree with what they have to say. Like kids sharing candy, one boy may like liquorice, and may offer it to the other kids because of what he perceives as an extraordinary flavor. The others have no obligation to accept the offer, and may even reject it.
But when do evangelists cross the line? A Christian couple was convicted last year for distributing two anti-Muslim publications, The Little Bride, and Who is Allah? This was Singapore’s first sedition trial involving religious publications. I do not know if the couple had read it prior to its distribution, but the odds are they didn’t. The Little Bride is full of nothing but offensive, presumptuous statements. The fact that these inflammatory messages were displayed as a children-friendly comic strip makes it worse! Materials like these promote religious intolerance, and supply a one-sided view of religion.
Were they correctly sentenced? Whether they were or not, they may have potentially ruined it for all evangelists in the country. Evangelists with the purest of intentions are now viewed as intolerant, religious extremists whose sole purpose is to rid the world of all opposing religions. Already, people like Benny Hinn have tainted the art of evangelism with their idiocy. The stereotype looks to be set in stone, and everyone is sold.
Hence, when people feel that their personal space is intruded by evangelists knocking from door to door, are they already holding a biased impression that these well-meaning evangelists are religiously intolerant? Even if there were religious signage on the doors of these households, one wonders if the mere act of spreading the gospel constitutes disrespect for the religious choices of the households involved.
Perhaps an actual, written sign would have worked better. “Beware of uninterested dweller” is subtle yet humorous, and also serves multiple purposes – it will repel salesmen, promoters and evangelists. If that doesn’t work, and they still come a-knocking, then Miss Braema’s sentiments would surely be justified. For now though, I’m not so sure they are.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
100) Brendan on January 15th, 2010 6.16 pm
Evangelism is one of the commands that they have to follow. There are also people who are not offended and have benefited.
Those who feel offended can direct their anger back at the offending person or other avenue. The evangelist have to give you the opportunity to reject them, as many times as they can handle your rejection, so don’t be shy to be offended or reject them.
I am absolutely disgusted with JH’s post of 56.
His/her first paragraph, the example of the person falling into a gaping hole on the road, has already been sufficiently rebutted upon by at least two other readers here. I concur with their criticism of JH’s naive thoughts.
His/her last paragarph is a great threat and insult to Muslims. JH said “Would anyone here really compare an evangelist who do a little hand-grabbing to a Muslim extremist/fundamentalist who goes on jihad and commit acts of terrorism”
PLEASE DO NOT EQUATE MUSLIM WITH TERRORIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are not being fair in your example. Do you remember the case of evengelist Jim Jones, and a couple more other christian fanatics. They forced people to do things to purify themselves and go closer to “god” and tragedy followed many died. Or the Moonists in Korea. All religions have idiots who misinterprete the faith in their zealousness and does great harm to humans.
An evangelist who do a little hand grabbing is faking an emotion, it is false illusion of “love” to everybody. There are numerous inconsistencies in the bible and there are many anecdotes in 1 Kings, Joshua, Chronicles to show the the mother of all Terrorism is the line of the Jews who massacred and terrorised the Arab tribes in Palestine and justified everything in “god’s” name. It’s all about land and politics. Do not be so short sighted as to think that Muslims are terrorists. The original terrorists are from the people of David the ancestor of the Christ . Read you Old Testament, JH!!
zero
To Tesla, post #31
In case you are still around -
you asked “Why should those with ‘no religion’ necessarily be more amenable to evangelism, or be considered easy pickings compared to say Muslims? ”
Probably your knowledge of world religion is close to zero.
Muslims and Christians come from the same source. In fact Muslims call christians people of the book. The split after Cain slew Abel and the tribes of Ishmael and Isaac are the source of all differences in Christians and Muslims, The bible records countless events in which unfairness and yes, terrorism, was inflicted by those from the lineage of David against and the other descendants of Ishmael which is, the arab world. Therefore, not forgetting also the Crusades, there is blood between this two religions, and it will never be easy for christian to preach to Muslim. Blood has long memories, my friend. It is nothing to do with discrimination. You need to educate yourself more. go read the bible, especially, Genesis, 1 Kings, 2 Kings.
zero
@lobo76, perhaps it’s something to do with how we Singaporeans don’t like random face-to-face encounters with strangers, like how most of us like to browse shop shelves without being approached by salespeople.
But there’s a difference. Insurance salespeople are there simply to market a product, and it’s smart for them to cater to consumer preferences. So if consumers don’t like being approached, perhaps they could set up booths to attract people to them.
With evangelists and other campaigners, the point is not simply to cater to your preferences, but to try to change them. If JBJ stands at the exit to City Hall MRT selling his book, “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”, he’s trying to change people’s beliefs/views about the ruling PAP government. If I want people on the street to sign a petition for, say, action w.r.t. climate change, I’ve got to convince them it’s worth their time and trouble. And ex hypothesi, in order to change people’s minds, you need to approach the initially unwilling or skeptical ones — you’re not just going to preach to the converted, i.e. stand and wait for people to come up to you.
Evangelism’s the same too. All these attempts to persuade others to your viewpoint is part of a vibrant democracy. We can’t shut out evangelists without also shutting out other ‘disagreeable’ views — and if we do, then we’ll all be living in our own pockets of opinion. Society would be balkanized, there’d be no debate or exchange of views. And we’d be left much the poorer for it.
@zero, it’s disappointing that you criticize JH for equating Muslims to terrorists (incidentally, he did no such thing in his post; to say “Muslim fundamentalists” is not to say “all Muslims = fundamentalists”, just as to say “Singaporean men” is not to say “all Singaporeans = men”), and then turn around and effectively call Jews and Christians terrorists.
to la nausee
I appreciate your point that JH did not say all Muslim are terrorists, but said that muslim fundamentalists are terrorist. In that case it is even worse. Because he/she is making a comparison between someone who shakes your hand and someone who is crazy. He/she is trying to say, a good person is better than an bad person. what is the hidden message behind? The impression i get is he/she is making a nasty insinuation between a Christian and a Muslim, the line is very thin. He should not compare this way. It is sacrilegious and insulting to all Allah-abiding Muslims, peace be with you.
Next, please do note that in no way did i say Christians are terrorist. There is no such thing as Christians are terrorist. It is as absurd as saying Muslim are terrorist. What i said are that the Jews in the times of the ancient world, those from the lineage of Christ (not meaning “christians” but rather, the ancestors of Christ, as in King David, Joshua etc.) were the original terrorists, because they considered themselves People of God and they used this as an excuse to decimate huge populations even babies, cattle and animals were not spared, whilst they put themselves as very god-fearing and righteous poeple. It is my view that this whole thing about old testament is to do with Land, the acquisition of land by force and then justifying it with “god”.
So it is not without reason that i did consider the Jews of the old testa,emt as terrorist.
Have you read 1 Kings, 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles. You need to do some reading first before we can discuss sensibly.
zero
One day Ah Beng met Ah Seng and said “Bradder!! I see you very unhappy lately. Don’t feel troubled ok. I will help you one.” Then Ah Beng continued “I have very good stuff that can bring you to the heaven and you will have no worries anymore after that. Ai mai try try?” Ah Seng was uninterested and replied “Mai lah, my ah ma say these things make people stupidz one. You best also stay far far away from them lah.”
On hearing this, Ah Beng shaked his head and carried on persuading “Aiya, your ah ma never try these stuff before so she dunoo how good they are meh. Don’t listen to her lah…you old ennuff to decide for yourself… you try first…when you find them good… you can let your ah ma try…and your whole family can try also.” Waving both his hands, Ah Seng said unbelievably “You siao olredi lah, you said so good then you keep them to yourself lah.. I don’t need these things because I have my own ways to deal with my life ok.”
Still unrelenting, Ah Beng said empathically “Last time I also don’t believe these stuff got so good one… But my ho hyadi insisted I try first because they really knows how good these stuff are for me…so, I tried and now I cannot live without them anymore. Can’t you see I’m a much happier person? Now, I have a group to hang out with and we share the good stuff together frequently.” Pausing for a moment for the idea to sink in, Ah Beng added “I tried them before, so I surely know it’s good for you, otherwise I wun recommend them to you one. My tua tao said we should not be selfish and should share the good stuff with other people, especially people like you who dun believe or still do no know about these good stuff yet.”
Ah Seng was very piss at these words and raised his voice at Ah Beng “You dun understand what I said izit? I really am not interested in these things ok… You Fxxx off and don’t talk about these things to me anymore!!” After the rejection, Ah Beng felt he got no face and retorted back “Why you so angry with me? I oni want to help you out…and spreading the good ‘stuff’ got wrong meh?” Ah Seng was lost for words and was heard mumbling ‘#%$@!*” as he walked away from Ah Beng who was still a bit puzzled why his offer of help was not taken kindly and flatly refused by this bradder.
la nausee ….
i dont agree with the insurance salesperson comparison.
They are providing a service that’s proven useful (if you look at it in long term).
You should consider comparing the evanglical christians to … say, time share resort salesperson. (or those that ask ppl to buy holiday package).
Just a thought …
Goodness,
Just saw the other thread that’s ongoing that the city harvest is going to spend 310 million for new building?
Now i understand why the need for all the aggressive evanglism.
Scary!
104) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 9.26 pm
With evangelists and other campaigners, the point is not simply to cater to your preferences, but to try to change them. If JBJ stands at the exit to City Hall MRT selling his book, “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”, he’s trying to change people’s beliefs/views about the ruling PAP government. If I want people on the street to sign a petition for, say, action w.r.t. climate change, I’ve got to convince them it’s worth their time and trouble. And ex hypothesi, in order to change people’s minds, you need to approach the initially unwilling or skeptical ones — you’re not just going to preach to the converted, i.e. stand and wait for people to come up to you.
First of all, not sure why you had to change from a generic salesman (#91) to an insurance one (#104). In any case, I disagree that they are not out to change people’s perception. If people previously didn’t want to buy, and now decide to buy after the salesman made his pitch, I would call that a change no matter how I look at it.
In you JBJ example, I think he gave it some thought as well. Certainly, he would not set up his stall where people are benefiting from the PAP regime.
Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?” Priest: “No, not if you did not know.” Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?”
Annie Dillard
I regard evangelism as the same ills as tobacco, fast food, popular western cultures which are highly erosive, invasive, corrosive. When an evangelist fail to sell u. It is highly they walk away with impression that u r a swine and shall cast no pearls unto you. All these talk about love and hell don’t really impress me becos I am proeast and anyone should read abit more about eastern history under the reign of the west. But one thing I am definitely sure is that the sun will always rise in the east.
Some people say no god no peace. Know god know peace. I can’t help wondering if too much god would be equivalent to a perfect peaceful world. We have seen that it is not for terrorism has too much god in them.
So what if the entire world eventually becomes one religion which is what evangelism try to achieve. Assuming we allowed that to happen and people still continue to sin. Would all go to heaven becos we have accepted god or would we go simply we have been good? Does god value goodness more or free will?
Why does religion go wrong? That even u put the most holiest thing in man’s hand yet it still turn out unholiest. A man who knows peace will have peace within himself. If a man needs to know god in order to know peace. By all means do it. If a man knows god yet he does not know peace. What good does knowing god do. Should man know thyself first which is what is missing or should man know god. For all the ills of this world. Is man following the work of god or the work of man by knowing the anger, hatred, pride, hypocrisy of man yet these are the values that one deal another as they exchanged blows.
When one look into oneself today or maybe one dare not becos one may see the same darkness within oneself which one dare not face. There are no greater enemy other than ourselves.
While terrorism is absolutely despicable. Did not one observed that terrorism only became active after the Iraq war. One war and terrorism wages war on the world. What happened to the nation whose belief is predominantly about love? Who is the real terrorist?
“If creation is real. I have been dead for a million years until I came. Before I came. I need no god or heaven. Fear no sins, hell or devil. That is truly heaven to me!”
I evangelize without any problems. I find that people like me. If they want to talk about faith in Christ, we talk. If not, we change the subject. I respect their right to hold other faiths views and to practice and even evangelize for non-Christian faiths. This is just common courtesy and respect for human rights.
Only a backward dictatorship would restrict free speech including evangelism.
I think nausee wrote it best:
Evangelism’s the same too. All these attempts to persuade others to your viewpoint is part of a vibrant democracy. We can’t shut out evangelists without also shutting out other ‘disagreeable’ views — and if we do, then we’ll all be living in our own pockets of opinion. Society would be balkanized, there’d be no debate or exchange of views. And we’d be left much the poorer for it.
Andy tried to villify Chrsitians with this
Of course there are also extremists in “Christian” sector. Like people who distribute offensive tracts, knock on doors, use the term Allah, or try to discourage homosexual behavior or practices.
It is a basic human right to condemn the homosexuial lifestyle and agenda as unhealthy and harmful to individuals, marriage, and society. It is also a basic human right to tell homosexuals they can be cured of their emotional problem and made normal. That is good news. Not hate. Not a threat. Non-violent.
As for using the word Allah, so what? That is also free speech too. Mohammedans have to learn to accept free speech of they will remain backward and self-defeating forever.
Dan
The issue of evanglism is not whether it should be banned.
Just that it should be regulated. (there should have to be a proper code of conduct ie your example above)
But what ire most of the people in this threads, is the more zealous ones tends to go overboard in their approach. (disregarding common courtesy, common sense and even common law!)
The idea of banning it altogether is probably due to the fact that the religious body cannot control / or curtail these overzealousness. (in some probably actively promoting the behaviour)
So the question is, in whose court is the ball now?
Dan
It is a basic human right to condemn the homosexuial lifestyle and agenda as unhealthy and harmful to individuals, marriage, and society. It is also a basic human right to tell homosexuals they can be cured of their emotional problem and made normal. That is good news. Not hate. Not a threat. Non-violent.
How is it basic human rights to condemn a minority group?
How is it basic human right to do any of things you mentioned above?
By your reasoning, it is also basic human rights to debunk a religion and its practices, no?
But the tread is about whether evangelism itself is a form of religious extremism.
I tend to believe that it is. (its along the same line as forced conversion in deathbed and etc)
@Kernz
Homosexuality is morally wrong, not just for Christians but many others as well. It is very well unnatural and harmful to society as wth gambling. Period.
There will always be a conflict against those that see religion as hereditary and those who see it as a matter of choice. Western ‘human rights’ are directly opposed to ethnic-based religions.
Dan
“I evangelize without any problems. I find that people like me. If they want to talk about faith in Christ, we talk. If not, we change the subject. ”
Honestly ,many people of different faith will feel offended when they are approached .Its just that they are trying not to show that they dislike you ,if you try to evangelize and convert them.So dun think there is no problem.
I have friends and sibling that share your faith.They help me when I am in need.But they never talk about their religion to me or try to convert me.To me ,They are the type that I really respect.
I only see certain people of certain faith who like to talk about religion.This cannot be taken lightly.
You read about that singer who is reported to reveal her NaeNaepok in a public concert (whether intentionally or non intentionally)in the States by the chinese paper yesterday?My junior family member like to watch her shows and had been brainwash.
Maybe using such tactic would be more acceptable
Sorry,error,I mean organising concert to promote religion is more acceptable than knocking on someone’s door