Analysis of Confrontational Evangelism

Utilitarianism:  The Confrontational Evangelistic method is based upon the premise that the overall good of mankind, that is, his “eternal” destiny is hinged upon an induced response to a message that appeals to its hearer to choose Christ rather than damnation, essentially making Christ the lesser of two evils in a choice.  The subject of such a confrontation is alarmed, incited, damned, and then gloriously delivered from the manufactured dilemma imposed by the speaker upon her or his willingness to decide for Christ.  Such decisionism remedies a crisis that otherwise would not have been induced should she or he not have been confronted.

This approach is a “right action [insofar as it] is the one that produces the most utility for the person performing the action” (Velasquez, p. 76), however it does not correspond to the essential element of utilitarianism; namely that “an action is right if it produces the most utility for all persons affected by the action (including the person performing the action)”  (Velasquez, p. 76).  Confrontationalism incites and consequently induces decisions.  These “decisions” lead to bondage that Christianity describes as a “two-fold more child of Hades” than the speaker inducing the decision.

The manufacturing of such crises agitates religious orders through its presumptive nature and pretentious premise.  Products of such confrontationalism simply reciprocate by extending the confrontation by the simulation of a “spiritual” crisis among religionists and non-religionists alike.  By taking into account “both the immediate and all foreseeable future costs and benefits that each alternative [action] will provide for each individual must be taken into account as well as any significant indirect effects” (Velasquez, p. 76).  Confrontational evangelism justifies its approach without regard for immediate:  psychological distress, undue fear, manufactured guilt, and foreseeable future costs:  disillusionment, disappointment, and discontentment.  Confrontationalists seek men zealously, but not for the benefit of those whom they confront, but rather, in order that they might make a display in the flesh.

Rights:  The Confrontational Evangelistic method does not regard the positive or negative rights of individuals.  Negatively speaking, confrontationalists disregard their “duty not to intervene in…private affairs” (Velasquez, p. 93).  The confrontationalists intrude and interpose their manufactured crisis into any and all social or private barriers an individual would otherwise have expected to be recognized.  Positively speaking, confrontationlists do not accept “the positive duty of providing the holder of the right with whatever he or she needs to freely pursue his or her interests” (Velasquez, p. 94).  That is, no educational resource for the dispositional interests of mankind is afforded accordingly; rather an undue emphasis is placed upon the securing of decisions and then moving on.

Justice:  Confrontational Evangelism does not respect the moral right of an individual “to be treated as a free and equal person, for example, as part of what lies behind the idea that benefits and burdens should be distributed equally.”  (Velasquez, p. 107).  The confrontational method unfairly distributes the burden of negating testimony upon society universally yet the benefits of deliverance are distributed only to those from whom decisions are induced.  The confrontational method would never approach its fellowman in any manner that would acknowledge the benefits of its “salvation view” to be as universal as its “damnation view”- essentially perpetuating a crisis driven confrontation against mankind.

Retributive justice, that is, “the just imposition of punishments and penalties on those who do wrong” (Velasquez, p. 107), is contradicted by that which presupposes confrontationalism; namely, that punishments and penalties are yet to be imposed on those who do wrong; that is, on those who don’t make the right decision.  Christ received the imposition and punishment for the wrongs done by others.

Compensatory justice, that is, “the just way of compensating people for what they lost when they are wronged by others” (Velasquez, p. 107) is designed to restore that which was lost when a wrong is incurred.  Confrontationalists do not engage in the process of declaring the restorative achievement, that is, the reconciliation accomplished by the Father of Jesus Christ when He withheld His imposition of “punishments and penalties” on mankind for his wrongs, that is failures.  Confrontationalists incite, threaten and intimidate, but offer no reconciliation; that is, declaration that each element of justice, retributive, distributive, and compensatory are all satisfied in the death of Jesus Christ.

Caring:  Confrontationalism demonstrates not one of the “three different forms of caring:  caring about something, caring after someone, and caring for someone”  (Velasquez, p. 126).  That is, the kind of treatment to which the ethic of care refers is void among confrontationalists.  This author finds the character of their relationship with others to be correctly crystallized in the textbook’s remarks:  “Relationships in which one person attempts to dominate, oppress, or harm another, relationships that are characterized by hatred, violence, disrespect and viciousness, and relationships that are characterized by injustice, exploitation, and harm to others lack the value that the ethic of care requires”  (Velasquez, p. 126).  Confrontationalists’ message is designed to exploit individuals as a means to their end, a display in the flesh- a most uncaring end.

Responsive Evangelism

Utilitarianism:The responsive approach of evangelism is one that is mutually beneficial for both the herald and the hearer.  Thus, this form indeed corresponds to the essential element of utilitarianism; namely, that “an action is right if it produces the most utility for all persons affected by the action (including the person performing the action)” (Velasquez, p. 76).  Responding to the outcries of one’s fellowman neither incites spiteful responses, nor satisfies itself through the inducement of a decision under duress.  Accurately announcing the correct message of Jesus the Messiah elicits no crisis on the part of the hearer, more rather, it alleviates any and all crises.  Therefore, both herald and hearer enjoy the most utility through this approach.

Rights:  Responsive evangelism, that is, the accurate angelistic approach regards both the positive and negative attributes of individuals’ rights.  First, the responsive approach recognizes its “duty to not intervene in…private affairs” (Velasquez, p. 93).  Second, responsive evangelism further accepts “the positive duty of providing the holder [hearer] of the right with whatever he or she needs to freely pursue his or her interests” (Velasquez, p. 94).  That is, an educational resource is graciously afforded the holder, rather than a confrontation whose aim is the securing of a decision.

Justice:  Responsive evangelism respects the moral right of individuals “to be treated as a free and equal person, for example, part of what lies behind the idea that benefits and burdens should be distributed equally”  (Velasquez, p. 107).  Responsive evangelism fairly distributes both the burden of negating testimony upon society universally, as well as the benefits of society’s deliverance.  Responsive evangelism is not crisis-driven rather an announcement of reconciliation.

Responsive evangelism adheres to the notion of retributive justice, that is, “the just imposition of punishments and penalties on those who do wrong” (Velasquez, p. 107); however, responsive evangelism accurately announces that the recipient of divine retribution, that is, the object of punishments and penalties to be the Messiah Himself.  This announcement recognizes the prerogative of the injured party, the Father, to choose the remedy, that is basis of satisfaction; specifically, the person Jesus upon Whom the Father expressed His divine retribution.

Further, responsive evangelism adheres to the notion of compensatory justice, that is, “the just way of compensating people for what they lost when they were wronged by others” (Velasquez, p. 107), through accurately announcing that all that mankind lost in the original disobedient act has been, and remains fully restored through Messiah’s receipt of divine retribution.

Caring:  The relationships involved in responsive evangelism are those “that exhibit the virtues of compassion, concern, love, friendship, and loyalty [and consequently] do have the kind of value that an ethic of care requires” (Velasquez, p. 126).  Further, responsive evangelism values the voluntary relationships that result from the initiation of student-teacher relationships and closely adheres to the implications that such an ethic of care implies; namely, “that such relationships should be maintained and nurtured”  (Velasquez, p. 127).