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.

Bridge-Building 2: "Relational Impact Studies"

[This is a sequel to a previous post, entitled Bridge-building in A Chaotic World.] 

Bridge-building with other cultures and people from other religious backgrounds must start with asking a few questions and then taking time to really listen. What is their story? Who are their family? What brings them joy or sadness? What is their direction, their goal that they are seeking? What are some of the most deeply held values that assist them in their life journey? I am also interested in their impressions of Christianity and Christians prior to this time and what has formed those opinions.

If we don’t ask and then sit quietly to listen over coffee or tea how will we know where to start building a bridge or if it is necessary? Perhaps there are strong bridge members already in place that need to be identified. There are a couple of things we can do that will sabotage the pre-building process. The first thing is to treat the listening process as a means to a unilaterally desired end. As impatient task-oriented Westerners, we often want to cut through the relational ceremony and get down to business. But what if the other person considers the relational ceremony as a business?

A second thing we can do that will render the listening stage non-relational is if we are listening only as a means to know what to say in response. Many years ago I used to view a conversation like a chess match and would be thinking at least a couple of responses ahead. I swore it off as violating one of my core values, that of hearing and being heard. People can tell the difference between a dialogue and a disguised monologue so we need to stop fooling ourselves.

While individualism is rooted in interests, personhood is tied to relationships. If we are going to have a relationship then we must fully listen to one another without feeling the compulsion to rebut, correct, fix, or persuade them to another point of view. Certainly, that may come as we acknowledge our respective convictions, but it must not be the purpose of our “listening.”

As I mentioned in a previous post when building a bridge the builders need to pick the right site, materials, and design. Similarly, if I don’t make myself teachable to those I am trying to connect then the relational "bridge" will in some way fail to deliver that which it promises. If we can’t be trusted to safely treasure the story, needs, and longings of others then our efforts at bridge-building will be seen more as an invasion and an occupation rather than an authentic connection.

My late father was a wildlife biologist and wetlands scientist who made his living doing environmental impact studies that must occur before any major construction project. It seems to me that the listening phase of bridge-building is somehow like a relational environmental impact study.

How can I learn what God is already doing in a person’s life if I don’t take time to sit and listen and watch? How can we assess how our efforts to “help” may actually hinder if we don’t listen to the still small voice of the Lord amidst our relentless pressing forward with our projects? I recently sat with a businessman who confessed to being a terrible listener and being bothered by that flaw. He was right. He was loud, opinionated, and more interested in what he had to say than what I was saying. But at least he was honest about the prevailing winds in his relationships and how they would affect any bridge-building in his life. He also desired to change and had opened his life to be mentored in this area.

Some have grown cynical from the too frequent “public meetings” hosted by our elected officials where they never seem to really care what the public says unless it agrees with what leaders have already made up their minds to do. Has the world grown cynical towards our Christian efforts at bridge-building because we don’t listen (or are perceived not to listen)? I don't want to contribute to such impressions.

Photo by Kayle Kaupanger on Unsplash

If these concepts resonate with you, Multnomah Biblical Seminary offers both a MA in Applied Theology and a Doctor of Ministry degree that incorporates such issues of cross-cultural engagement. This post is a sample of something that was initially written as a class assignment for that program. I invite you to check out this bridge-building program as a paradigm for the ministry of God's unchanging love in the midst of this changing world.

Also, a listening-related post that looks at whether God hears our deepest cries can be found in Psalm 22 “Unanswered Call… Answered”.