ACME "Bait and Switch" (A Response)

Bait and Switch

The following post is a response to Paul Louis Metzger’s Patheos post Bait and Switch. In his article, he encourages Christians to not pretend to be relational merely to obtain conversions. The test of our relationality is whether we are willing to be friends with those who don’t accept Christianity and show no signs of interest. Will we be relational with non-believers over the long haul, or are we merely economic relaters who temporarily invest for a return and then reevaluate, cut our losses, and reinvest elsewhere? If we advertise friendship and caring and only deliver evangelism, to use Metzger’s terminology that is “bait and switch”. The Apostle Paul was truly relational with the Thessalonians, not spinning his message for personal or ecclesial gain.

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness… But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:3-8)

As I read and considered Metzger’s concept of relational bait and switch I thought about ACME. Remember how in the old Roadrunner cartoons how the Coyote was always trying to bait the Roadrunner? ACME was the catalog company from whom the Coyote bought all his crazy Roadrunner-catching schemes.

 

 

 

 

He often put up signs advertising false detours, Roadrunner food, and painting fake tunnels on rock walls. The Roadrunner always seemed to be able to use the detours successfully. Yet when the Coyote tried to follow he always seemed to get hit by a train or some type of exploding device. Perhaps in a “bait and switch” scenario, people may still benefit from hearing the good news even if our motives and methodology fall short (Philippians 1:18) like the Roadrunner using the Coyote’s painted-on escape tunnel. However, in such situations, we are the ones who end up suffering like the Coyote for the sin of objectifying relationships and misrepresenting the love of Christ. We miss out on what we could have learned from the other specifically because they were different and yet human. They have more to say than, "Beep! Beep!"

 

Metzger writes, “I want to listen and learn from my friends of other paths. If I don’t listen to people, it is very difficult to communicate love, which is foundational to Jesus. Listening and mutual learning and loving go hand in hand.” This subject of listening is one I have explored at length on this blog in other posts.

The concept of “bait and switch” belies a transactional approach to our salvation that is less than Biblical. The thought that we are only able to be “relational” with those who share our world-view and/or our “otherworld”-view says that we have yet to apprehend the love of God who, “shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Not only were we sinners but we had made ourselves his enemies and it was then he died for us, whether we would believe in him or not. Metzger says rightly, “Still, while I have no control over someone being converted to Christ, and will not try to force someone’s hand or heart, I do have control over whether or not I will love someone as myself.”

On this subject, Jesus’ treatment of Judas Iscariot is instructive, for he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him and yet treated him no differently than the other disciples. I find it mind-blowing and heart-stretching that when the night of Jesus’ betrayal came, and Jesus said that one of those sharing the meal with him was the traitor—nobody knew who it was (Matthew 26:20-25; Mark 14:17-21; Luke 22:22-23).

Further, Jesus taught his followers to care for others, and sharing with a fully non-reciprocal mindset is also applicable to this discussion. We are not commanded to invest a limited amount of loving-kindness in hope of a spiritual response from another person. If we are to share what we have with no expectation of receiving back in either food or finances, can the sharing of ourselves be any different? [Note: Non-reciprocal does not deny that a relationship can and should evidence mutuality.]

We may not get any economic ROI, but perhaps we can gain a more relational understanding or benefit from another perspective. This is true especially of their toughest arguments and accusations; they can temper the steel of our character to love and serve even more like Christ in the future. Metzger notes that,

“Perhaps such critics don’t realize it, but they are also evangelizing me, when they try to encourage me to stop evangelizing: they are trying, in a sense, to “convert” me out of being an Evangelical, which as I said above involves concern for evangelistic witness.”

I agree with his assessment and don’t want to become “devangelized” (my term) by my critics nor desensitized to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that may come through those same people.

May the Lord remake our hearts—with the stuff of Heaven not the stuff of ACME—that we might love long, in a way that represents well the One who first loved us.