Do you find it offensive when a person "witnesses" to you?

It depends on the style of witnessing.

Someone who witnesses by living a good Christian life—I don’t have a problem with that at all.

Someone who witnesses by not shutting up about the power of Christ—truly I tell you, they have had their reward.

I agree. I am proud of my beliefs, but I make a point not to stress them on anybody else.

I don’t mind as long as they go away when I say I’m not interested.

Depending on my mood I will add to the conversation but if it starts getting weird I will say goodbye.

Very!
I had a handicapped child, and when we were visiting ‘Heritage USA’ Jim Bakker’s old ‘theme park’ (to gawk at the conspicuous consumption)...
A person came up to my daughter’s stroller and tried to lay hands on her and “HEAL!!!” her.
When he was told to go away, he said something that implied that her condition was the result of the sins of the parents.
What an ass!!!

I work with a woman who is hardcore catholic. I’m talking about attending church every day hardcore. She is a bit of a talker, so my co-workers and I get preached to just about every day. Sometimes it can be a nuisance, but sometimes I just like to get her going for the fun of it. It’s fun to play devil’s advocate and get her worked up when she tries to make a point.

It’s only offensive if they don’t stop when asked, and this happens often.

I was waiting in an emergency room once because I had a massive infection. I was in tremendous pain, I was crying, and this random lady walks up to me and starts telling me how Jesus will save me and make my pain go away, etc. I asked her politely to leave me alone, but she didn’t, she just kept going on and on. After about 10 seconds my wife told her to get the fuck away from me and tell Jesus that he could help by giving her (the lady) something better to do. And this is only one account.

I HATE IT!!

I like it best when they don’t use words. The best Christian “Witness” is the one that others witness Christ-like behavior in.

I don’t really understand what we are talking about here. They come up and start preaching?

@Bri_L Yep!

wow. Never had that happen to me.

@Grisson ; you threw yourself into the lions den! There was no way you would get yourself out of there without being “Prayed on.”

Christians should lead by example, and be willing to converse knowledgeably with someone about their faith if that person shows interest. Too often though, it’s this sort of “blindside them with facts about hell” approach that usually scares people away, instead of the wanted result.

@Judi Yeah, Probably had it coming… But you should have seen that place. They had a mall where the ceiling was bathed in blue light likes some sort of heaven theme. There was a Tammy Faye makeup shop, and a chocolate store that had this humoungous chocolate cross right beside an equally humoungous chocolate Jaguar. (So you could pick your God, I guess).

Whenever we had out of town visitors, going to Heritage was de rigueur. Sorta like going to the wharf or Chinatown in S/F, or the Empire State Building in NYC..

@Grisson ; I know, one of those things that diminish us Christians. We’re a diverse group. I hope you don’t judge all of us by the actions of a noisey few.

As a small child, I had to stand with my guardian on street corners while she handed out tracts (some of them by Jack Chick!) and witnessed to people. She took literally the admonition to go on the highways and byways to spread the good news. The people she tried to witness to weren’t having it. At all.

I’m not offended, but I expect to be acknowledged and left alone when I tell a witness that I’m working out my own soul’s salvation, thank you.

It is my experience that the people who talk and really try and push their faith on others aren’t REALLY “good” Christians. My friends that I consider to really be true and honest followers never judge or preach…if you ask them a question they will answer it honestly, but they never push their faith on others. On the other hand, I have had a lot of people try to “save” me and judge me for my beliefs and how I live my life and it is those people that think horrible things about others and try and do things that are, in my opinion and based on my knowledge of the religion, extremely un-Christian (like verbally abusing and “condemning” people who aren’t Christian)...

I don’t mind people having faith (I am extremely faithful…just not religious)...and I don’t mind them wanting to share their faith, but when “sharing” becomes lecturing and judging you if you don’t agree it is no longer actually following the tenants of the Christian faith.

@Judi Us is us. My preacher often says in her benedictions, “Go spread the Good News. Use words if necessary.” And I agree with that 100%. (Which is why your first response got a G/A from me).

The best advice I’ve ever heard on this topic is:

There are few things people hate more than answers to questions they didn’t ask.

Seems apropos to mention on fluther, somehow…
Funny how the word fluther fails the spell check…

If I wanted to know, I’d ask.

I do find it a bit offensive, mainly because I feel like they’re essentially telling me that my way of life/beliefs/etc are “wrong” and that theirs are “right” and I should be working at changing mine.

The other thing they are assuming is that the person is not Christian to begin with.

Evanagelist: “Are you SAVED!?”
Me: “None of your damned business!”

I don’t know where they get their false impression!

It depends on their motive. If I feel like the person cares about me and what happens to me, then I respect their efforts. If I feel like they care about their cause or my conversion or my sins or anything that isn’t my well-being, then yeah, I find it pretty damn offensive.

Bringing me to light is one thing, dissuading me from the dark is a whole different one.

@adreamofautumn and @Grisson I agree with both of you. For me it’s more of the impression that they feel their belief system is somehow better than/superior to mine.

@Judi It seems like you have the right idea about your faith and how to share it. Kudos.

Actions speak louder than words,even for (us) Christians.

When I was in seminary, my church sponsored something called Continuing Witness Training (CWT). Basically we were taught a canned presentation, complete with scripture references, that we memorized to present to the “lost.” We had a trainer who took us out to “witness” to complete strangers using our memorized presentation. It was like being a vacuum salesperson. I memorized my spiel, but I never felt comfortable with the whole approach which seemed false and demeaning to me. When I quit, I was told by the minister in charge of the program that I was in danger of going to hell because it’s a Christian’s “duty” to “share the gospel.” I felt guilty at the time, but now I look back on this event as spiritual abuse. The whole CWT program was a joke—a ridiculous sales pitch designed to “win” people to Christ. I reject any and all methods which suggest that you can “sell Jesus” to people. As others have said, if a Christian wants to “witness” they should live as Christ taught—not try to beat people over the head with a sales pitch.

Depends on my mood. I can usually quote the Bible much better than they can. So sometimes I remind them that Jesus never said “Go ye into all the world and bang on people’s doors, distributing tracts and bugging them to death in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” He went out on the hillside where they could come and hear him if they wanted to.

Sometimes I tell them I’m a Buddhist, and sometimes I say I’m a heathen. I always enjoy the reaction to that.

In no case do I want to listen to any more of what I spent the first 16 years of my life choking on.

@suzyq2463 Thank you SO much for your answer. I am adding you to my list of “good” Christians. I am sorry that you had such a horrible experience, but I am glad that you came out of it positively.

It’s like any other salesman/viral meme that comes along. If they can respect a pleasant “no thank you,” that’s fine. Only if it persists past that does it really become offensive.

I invented my own religion to put a stop to it. In fact, should someone start witnessing to me about their imaginary friend, I tell them about mine, and when they say the story of Evelyn is ludicrous, I reply, “Yeah, like the story of your zombie savior nailed to a stick makes perfect sense.” That usually works. Not too many people witness to me anymore. My reputation precedes me. :-)

Laureth put it perfectly for me. I don’t mind exactly, unless they won’t stop when asked nicely to do so. I do find it odd that people knock on my door to do this in the first place. I really wonder how successful this tactic could possibly be…

@Grisson ; I once stepped into the Lion’s pit myself when I visited my first husbandscousins Penticostal Church wearing pants, a wedding ring and short hair. They came after us like chickens after a bread crumb to save our eternal souls! We had the laying on of hands and the speaking in toungs and the dancing and falling in the aisles.

yes, it is annoying, though most Christians do not practise this anymore. Thank God.

@Jack79, come to Illinois, they do it here all the time.

It’s not cool. I don’t care how much Christians tell themselves they’re doing it for our own good. If you’re not my friend or my family you don’t give a flying flip about my soul. And hopefully those that do actually care, would also care enough about me to listen to me and have an intelligent discussion rather than just preaching.

Preaching is no different than instigating a debate and then refusing to hear the other side. Disrespectful.

@fundevogel Wow… much lurve for that answer!!

i’m not offended when people mention religion to me and offer to bring me to their church, offer a pamphlet, etc. they have the right to do so, and most of them are doing it with good intentions of doing what they think is helpful to people who aren’t religious.

however there’s this group at my school, the first priority club, for religious folks. and at lunch last year, this kid comes up to me and my friends with a composition notebook, and he asks if he can ask us some questions for his class/club/whatever, and we’re like, ‘yeah sure’. first of all, this little interview was – no exaggeration – 30 minutes long. and they were all, obviously, religious based questions, which i was pretty comfortable with answering. but it took up the entire lunch break. and the questions were hardly even making sense toward the end, like it was sort of him just trying to get us to confirm that we’re like heartless atheists or something. and one of my friends got up to go to the bathroom and she said he wasn’t even writing anything down, but he was pretending to. after he finished with his damn long ‘interview’, he finished up the last 15 minutes or so of lunch by telling us how we would be damned to eternity in hell if we didn’t repent, and that he believes this because it’s fact, yaddayaddayadda, and i don’t know. i don’t mind others sharing their religion with me, but not when you’re making it creepy and being pretty condescending and just sort of deceitful.
i wish i remembered more from it, but it was so incredibly uncomfortable, and the way he went about it was pretty disrespectful.
it’s like, he could have just asked us a few questions and then told us that we should check out the christian club or whatever, and that this is why he thinks we should, have a nice day, thank you, bye. as opposed to being a creep.

I’m one who has benefited from others witnessing to me. Though I can understand why one would be offended by another preaching to them, I find it a healthy exercise for checking my own assumptions of others and their beliefs. I guess what I mean is that it seems really easy to get in a path of thinking I actually know someone else’s beliefs well enough to discard them as not my own, when in reality, I find the matter of belief and knowledge to be a very dynamic and complex thing. Just because a person identifies himself or herself as part of a particular religion doesn’t mean I can know what that person believes. And if people didn’t take a chance on witnessing their faith, I’d probably remain in my worldview without ever having a challenge to it. By working through those challenges, and negotiating the various beliefs of a wide diversity of religions—among intelligent and active fellow citizens—I find myself adjusting my assumptions and opinions, though I, as of yet, have not completely altered course in my own convictions.

it has to do with someone forcing their beliefs on you, while wearing a mantle of benevolence. They devalue the person and their thoughts by taking the position of having absolute knowledge of what the person needs, sometimes without knowing much about the person they are claiming to have absolute answers for.

There is a big difference between witnessing/preaching and just talking about religion and personal philosophy.

All too often, however, a genuine witness is misinterpreted by the “offended” listener as a forcing of beliefs. Unless there’s a real imperial apparatus at work (a gun, physical abuse, political power through tyrannical rule, etc.), I’m not convinced witnessing one’s beliefs constitutes “forcing” those beliefs on another. The mantle of benevolence would be offensive, if it were common. I believe, though, that this mantle is perceived by the listener more than actually worn by the witness. It’s all to easy to claim someone was being prideful or conceited when one disagrees with what is being shared. Ironically, how often do we, the ones who claim to be open minded, assume that others are being forceful and unfair?

@thegodfather
Of course it’s aggressive. Any time you presume with absolute certainly what is good for someone else and go so far as to tell them, you take on a mantle of superiority. In this case moral and spiritual superiority.

I don’t come up to you and tell you ur doin eet rong.

There are other ways to learn about religion, like reading, visiting places of worship and balanced discussion.

@fundevogel
What I’m talking about is the bad judgment on the part of those who claim they’ve been offended by someone else’s religious witness. You seem to assume that anytime someone offers their religious conviction, they think of their beliefs as “absolute certainty.” In my experience, most religionists feel a brotherly/sisterly desire to share to others what has brought them fulfillment and meaning; few shove religion down someone else’s throat. So, to project onto another person the mantle of superiority when in their minds, they see themselves as doing their best to show compassion as a human sibling rather than a parent or superior human, I believe installs the very same hierarchy on the part of the listener; in this moment of assuming too much of the Other, the listener in effect constitutes himself or herself as offended and inferior—thus perpetuating the hierarchy with or without any actual malice on the part of the Other. In this moment, the listener is every bit at fault for the misunderstanding and offensiveness of the witnessing as the superior-ist religionist—which is actually a creation, for all he or she knows, in the mind of the listener.

And, what I’m mainly trying to offer, is that even when it’s almost certain that the witnesser is taking occasion to stifle another human being, and with boldness and overbearingness declare “absolute truths” with no consideration of the beliefs and sensitivities of his or her audience—even in these moments, I have actually found myself being checked in my presumptions about the faith tradition represented by the witnesser. I find that it forces me, if I’m going to be really fair and open-minded, to not retreat into what is all-too-convenient a place, namely a position of seeing myself as being so rudely proselytized to. Rather, it’s proven a healthy exercise for me to listen to the witnesser, to open myself up to what he or she is saying. And I have found that rather than be swayed or be entrenched in anything, I come away with a better take on the faith tradition and an improved stamina for listening to what immediately strikes me as offensive. In other words, I feel as though my abilities in public discourse are sharpened, and coming away offended or not really becomes a choice on my part rather than an automatic and defensive tactic.

@thegodfather
Ultimately the question was “do you find it offensive when a person witnesses to you?” I do, and so do plenty of other people. You may not think this is an appropriate response but it a very real and legitimate response and your rationalizing does not change that.

If some one is offended they are offended. Maybe its just a little offended or maybe they’re just butt hurt over something stupid, but the validity of the feeling has absolutely nothing to do with its existence. See PMS. I suppose they could be lying about getting offended, but not all of them are going to be liars so you still have some people getting offended. Whether or not you think it is merited is an entirely different point that won’t have any effect whatsoever on anyone’s feelings but your own.

I would be less likely to think poorly of witnesses if they listened to what I had to say. When they want me to listen to them but won’t listen to me why should I feel the need to show them a courtesy they won’t return?....even if your intentions are good, if you’re still telling someone they they need to do things your way because if they don’t they’re going to hell, you are taking a position of that your way is superior/right/good and theirs is not, or at least not good enough.

At the very best the witness is selling something and it doesn’t matter how good the car is, if the person isn’t ready to buy its just harassment.

I’ll push back by saying that it’s all too easy to fall back on “if someone is offended, they are offended.” This obviates any responsibility on the part of the listener and in my opinion is just a cop-out. So I can be offended by anything now, and be justified for it, just because in my opinion I perceived that someone was “selling me something”? I want to take adults who think this way to task and say that in most cases, we all choose to what extent we’ll be offended or not. We may be talking about different things. See, I don’t equate disagreeing with offended, which seems to come through in your responses to my comments. Whatever the case, give not being offended a try, an honest try with real intent, and see what happens. I submit that you’ll find how little people actually say offensive things, and you may even feel a little defensive for someone that has witnessed to you though you may completely disagree with them.

As a case in point, I’m finding this discussion fruitful in at least one way: I’m able to articulate to myself how I feel about certain difficult aspects of human interaction, which gives me some practice in patience and articulation. In my first comments, I assumed that much of what I said had the quality of being clear and meaningful, and that’s been challenged in no simple terms. This, for me, serves as a good example of what I have experienced not only with discussions, politics, or religion, but also with interpersonal witnessing, and I offer that here as an alternative to our immediate, embedded, and visceral reaction to take offense when someone waxes bold in their assertions about personal matters.

> This obviates any responsibility on the part of the listener

I place “witnessing” of the type that we’re talking about here in the larger category of advertising. Someone wants to sell me a product or service for some reason of his or her own. Beyond basic courtesy, the listener does not have any responsibility, and if the speaker violates basic courtesy, the listener’s remaining obligation is only to his or her own sense of decency.

@thegodfather
Offense is an emotional reaction like surprise, affection or loathing, they aren’t cued up on demand they just happen. You can attempt to control emotion, but that doesn’t eliminate the emotion it just changes how it is dealt with. Maybe the way they deal with it is inappropriate, but the existence of the emotion is beyond debate, because emotion is not based on reason or calculation.

I made no claim as that disagreement was the root of the offense, in fact I linked my dislike of the circumstance to witness’ frequent disinterest in hearing my thoughts while pushing their own. There are many circumstances where I disagree with someone but I am not offended. Nothing about this conversation offends me. I disagree about religion with 100% of my family but it hasn’t produced any terrible rift or offense, because we have learned to respect each other and our differences.

I’m glad that you have found the discussion useful.

I disagree that offense is only an emotional reaction like surprise. And affection and loathing also are nothing like surprise. You can choose to forgive, to no longer loathe something or somebody. To say this is beyond debate is taking this as axiomatic, which is quite a leap in logic. You may be in agreement with me, albeit in different terms: “I disagree about religion with 100% of my family but it hasn’t produced any terrible rift or offense because we have learned to respect each other an our differences.” I’ll push back here with what appears to be your own experience with what I’m talking about. I guess what I’m advancing is one more dimension to this: that you don’t need the Other to give the listening ear, they can be completely jarring and overbearing, but if you give respect in your own mind and allow yourself to not prejudge what you’re hearing, you better understand others and refine your own projections you inherently make.

I wish in our public discourse, we were less prone to immediately take offense when someone is mean, curt, distasteful, or overbearing. Imagine if, as a society, we focused on social forgiveness rather than only social justice. We might just find those that are so hateful soften and extend a listening ear in return. But that’s just an idealism, not something I’m advancing with reason or proof.

@Jeruba
I mean if the listener takes offense, and they do so while taking no effort to understand where the advertiser is coming from, then in this instance, the listener is at some fault for taking offense, and shouldn’t hide behind a cloak of “they’re so offensive and unfair.” How did the listener show any patience, listening, or open-mindedness when they cite the lack of this in the advertiser as the reason for being offended?

I don’t owe anyone access to my attention.

Choosing to forgive, is as I stated before, is a way of dealing with emotion. It does not negate the existence of the emotion. Yes the way an emotion is dealt with can affect the course the emotion takes, but again it does not negate the existence of or in any way reflect the validity of an emotion. If emotions were subject to reason or debate we wouldn’t be people, we’d be robots.

I’m not being axiomic, I have had my fair share of emotions that didn’t make sense and I wanted to change, it in no way enabled me to change how I felt. Reason does not govern emotion. Emotion just IS.

Webster says that
to offend is to cause dislike, anger, or vexation (all emotion responses)
an offense is the state of being insulted or morally outraged (also an emotional response)

If you think that offense simply isn’t an emotion and not subject to characteristics of emotion I would very much like to know what you do think it is.

“you don’t need the Other to give the listening ear, they can be completely jarring and overbearing, but if you give respect in your own mind and allow yourself to not prejudge what you’re hearing, you better understand others and refine your own projections you inherently make.”

I can’t respect someone that can’t show me the same respect, sorry.

I wish in our public discourse, we were less prone to offend by being mean, curt, distasteful or overbearing. I imagine if, as a society, we focused on respecting others we might just find those that do not agree with us more willing to extend a listening ear in return. But that’s just an idealism, not something I’m advancing with reason or proof.

That’s too bad that you feel that you can’t govern your emotions, that they just are and that one must first show you respect for you to respect them. This, to me, is consummate Americanist ethic. I recommend as a helpful text in this regard the Dalai Lama’s “The Art of Happiness.” You’ve now zeroed in on precisely what I’m inviting others to invert: try living an ethic of respecting others regardless of them “earning” it or not, an ethic of listening regardless of being listened to, an ethic of open-mindedness regardless of how closed-minded others treat you.

But I thought you said that offense wasn’t an emotional response? If that were the case it shouldn’t have anything what so ever to do with my ability or inability to govern my emotions.

But if it were an emotion, my response to you criticism of my character would be:

Dealing with an emotion can take the form of governing it. The fact of the matter is, if you could control what you would feel when, you wouldn’t need to govern it. But lets not get personal, shall we?

Open mindedness does not require me to stop using critical thinking and propriety does not require me to be pushover.

I said offense isn’t only an emotional response. You equated offense with emotion, as only emotional response, and argued that one can’t help experience offense, it just happens when another causes offense. That’s exactly what I’m taking time to critique here: that if that’s the case, you experience offenses at whim, and thus can’t control your emotions, they just are, they just happen to you. Obviously you can govern your emotions, and if feel that you can’t, I truly am sorry for you.

But, my argument is not that offense is only an emotional response. I’ve argued that it is also chosen and governed by your reason and your mind. In other words, someone is overbearing, and on the surface it would cause an offensive spirit in the listener. But at this point, the listener may let it linger or not. The person may also practice an ethic of open-mindedness that minimizes the occasions and duration of feeling offended.

I’m curious why you qualify your statements with “getting personal”? Have you misinterpreted my tone, or are you aware of how potentially offensive your comments may appear (within your own system of emotionality)? I will say that it appears to me that some on this thread almost want to stay offended. I never argue that there’s no reason to be offended: witnessing is bold, pushy, and frequently crosses the line within the social order or expectation of things. I’m not trying to give excuses to those that witness. I’m only trying to point out that it cuts both ways, that us liberal-minded individuals ought to manifest the ethic we expect in social discourse, regardless of those that might witness to us. I, for one, have taken time in discourse to contemplate what others have offered by way of witnessing, and have tried to cultivate an ethic of open-mindedness. It’s no easy or simple thing, but certainly worth pursuing, and frankly, more fruitful and meaningful than waiting on others to show respect.

“Seek to understand before seeking to be understood” probably sums up my thoughts best.

You didn’t provide any support for your statement that offense wasn’t only an emotional response. You just said that it wasn’t. That’s why I keep bugging you about it. Until you can give me a convincing argument supporting your view, I have no reason to agree with you.

I’m not interested in persuing tangents when you never addressed your thesis. And we’re off topic. If you have something more to offer and would like to continue this send me a private message.

I don’t see how this is off topic when it’s at the heart of the question of the thread: Do you find it offensive when a person “witnesses” to you? We’re discussing the nature of offense and whether one bears any personal responsibility for thinking/feeling offended. I see our comments as very important to the topic at hand and not tangential at all. And I’d like to see support you can lend to your assertion that offense is only emotion. So far you’ve relied on some rather axiomatic proofs which I’ve challenged, though I am open to the possibilities. If you prefer through private message, so be it, though I do think it’d be beneficial to onlookers who have read our exchange.

I think that has become a discussion more about the nature of human emotion/conduct rather than witnessing. It’s far enough from the original question that I don’t think people coming to check out this question will be interested in our exchange.

For this reason my response will be in your comments, I will leave it set to public if anyone feels the burning need to check it out.

if you choose to be around someone, you give them the opportunity. maybe you should ask someone if they’re a christian before you decide to conversate with them. may make your life easier.