Permission to be Heard, and the Risk of Anti-Evangelizing

As I note regularly in my posts, my wife and I are part of a counseling center. One thing we like to tell our trainees (and I would like to think we practice) is “We have have to earn the right to be heard.” A similar way of looking at it is “We need to be given permission to be heard.” There is, I suppose, a whole constellation of aphorisms or adages that point toward this sort of truth. For example, the statement “Actions speak louder than words” gives a different bit of wisdom, but it still points to the challenge of any speaker that it is actually the hearer who is in control. We may (or may not) be able to make people hear us… but we simply cannot compel people to listen.

What is making me reflect on this for a bit is a presentation I was at recently. The speaker was sharing (and I was listening). She is a Evangelical Christian who teaches courses or seminars in a secular setting. She was sharing that she always made sure she would include an evangelistic gospel presentation during the first session… and early in that first session. Her reason is sound enough generally. She does not want to have any student of hers to come to her course without hearing the gospel message.

But what about the “permission” thing I was mentioning at the top. If one is teaching a course— especially one in which students/trainees have chosen to take the course, rather than by compulsion— one might assume that the hearer has given permission. But even for the voluntary students/trainees, such permission is limited.

Suppose I am teaching a class on Holistic Missions here in the Philippines, and further suppose on the first day of class, I stand up and start expressing my beliefs about Philippine politics. Perhaps I side with PBBM or perhaps Du30, but then suppose I not only express my opinions but then seek to exhort them to reject their own political stance and embrace mine. Do you think the listeners will be swayed by my words? Probably not but who knows? But here is a more important question— could there be a backlash? Is it possible that students who are forced to listen to my “political ad” may actually be turned off by my talk. Will it drive people away from my viewpoint? Probably not— but might it harden their resolve against my view? I think this is more likely. Sometimes this is called the backfire effect… or pushback. Quite possible. Could it even undermine my influence in the topic that I am actually supposed to be teaching? Again, quite possibly.

Now I don’t think that means that one should always keep one’s cherished beliefs (political, faith, culture, etc.) to oneself and never seek to change others’ minds. But when one does seek to do so— one should not do or say things that undermine the presentation.

A bad presentation of the gospel, or a good presentation done poorly is not at its worst neutral. If it was neutral at worst, why not simply share under any circumstance, using any method. In such a scenario, the assumption is that one does no harm.

But I think under certain circumstances one can do harm. In the situation of evangelizing— I think having an American short-term missionary screaming in the face of a destitute Filipino “You have to be saved!!! You have to be saved!!!” may actually be a form of anti-evangelizing. I have seen that situation occur. Having a medical mission where high pressure evangelizing is done where there is an implication (I think) that getting free medical and dental care and pharmaceuticals is dependent on how they respond could be a form of anti-evangelizing. I have seen that as well. Luring students to a study methods seminar and then after a few minutes transition into “forced” 1-on-1 evangelizing may also be anti-evangelizing. I personally involved myself in that one many years ago.

I don’t always know when one crosses the line from net positive to net negative. However, I do think that we need to earn the privilege of being heard, and earning the right to speak is NOT the same as earning the right to be heard.