In the last issue of Christward Michael asked us to think about the place of mission, meaning mission in the old-fashioned sense of evangelism rather than our usual soggy Liberal "good works" interpretation. Like many at Union Chapel I find myself very uncomfortable with the idea, but years of exhortation and articles such as Michael's have taken their toll and I do feel guilty about just dismissing the idea. I do believe that the faith I have might be of value to others. Michael apologised for producing a personal statement full of the word "I" - I make no such apology!

So why am I uncomfortable with the idea of evangelism? Firstly, I suspect much of it is due to my experience of those who do try to convert the rest of us to their particular brand of Christianity. Having succumbed to a fairly traditional "conversion experience" in my youth, it took me quite a few years to finally accept that the Christ I now professed was in fact much more like the Jesus I thought I was rejecting before being "saved", than the triumphalist, judgmental bigot my friends were propagating. I was much nearer the truth as I now see it before becoming a "Christian" than after. Having had to painfully reject much of what is being sold in our name, I do not wish to be associated with any more selling of dubious goods. I have not seen any form of "witness" which would not put us, in the minds of the hearers, alongside these others. I am not one of them and do not wish others to think of me as one!

Secondly, traditional theological language and right wing or hard line theology are now inextricably linked. There are many around who are trying, with varying degrees of integrity and success, to sell the Christian faith to those who are "outside" (itself a very variable location!). Most, maybe all, of those I have witnessed profess a version of Christianity with which I do not wish to be associated and which either embarrasses me or angers me. This is the sort of faith people have rammed down their throats. This is what they think Christians are and believe. Unfortunately those who make the noise define the language. Whilst we know what we mean when we talk of Jesus, those outside are not able to see the subtle distinctions. Christians are either mad, irrelevant or positively dangerous. There is no language we can use to talk about our faith which is either accessible to those who are not in the know or not tainted by association with other beliefs. If people hear the language they will think we are trying to sell them the "born again" package they will reject us without listening or understanding that there is more than one way of being a follower of Christ. If we are to "sell" our faith to others and avoid the association with those whose beliefs we do not share, we need a new language, and new labels which distinguish us from those other groups. After all if people are going to be interested in a fundamentalist or conservative version of Christianity there are already plenty of people who will convert them to that faith. If we at Union Chapel are to offer anything, then it is a different path which will only appeal to those who have rejected the road to the right. We need to be able to make the difference clear, and I don't know how to begin to do that.

Thirdly, I believe that virtually all the "selling" of Christianity that I have witnessed is fundamentally dishonest. I can't remember who it was who said that if you really wish to change somebody's opinion, and care for that person, there must be an equal chance that by the end of the encounter it is your opinion that is changed, not theirs. Certainly in my reading of the Gospels there are several examples of Jesus' mind being changed by those he meets. More trivially, we all encounter the "have a free book" or " we are talking to people about children, famine, ... " or any of the other tricks used to given a lead into a sales pitch. "I'm not trying to sell you anything but ...".

So, would I lend a video of Jesus' life to my friends? No! No, because it would be a total denial of who I am and what I believe for me to feel in any way associated with those who do actively proselytise in this way. No, because the name of Christianity has been so tarnished by the beliefs, attitudes, and methods of the fundamentalist sects that however hard we try, we would be selling the wrong product. And no, because the method of giving a free video and then demanding to talk about it, however well-intentioned, smacks of the methods of the double glazing salesmen.

So are there alternatives? This is of course a much more difficult question, and I don't have any easy answers to offer. However I don't believe the answers for Union Chapel will be found from any of the myriad of evangelism schemes and methods around today, all of which come from a theological perspective very distant from ours (if this is not true then I'm leaving!). I promise to have a go in a follow-up article in the next issue, but in the meantime I offer a couple of questions:

· Can anyone give me some nice label to describe our sort of non-judgemental, open, tentative, exploratory Christianity? The old "liberal" label doesn't work any more. Not fundamentalist/conservative/evangelical is too negative. Denominational labels are now useless.

· There must be members of our congregation, or their families, who have come to a real faith without going through an evangelical or fundamentalist stage. It must be possible to come to a radical/liberal/rational/open form of Christianity without an intermediate conservative step. Can those who have trodden that path tell us about the journey?

· Something like half the Sunday morning congregation have begun to attend Union Chapel since Eric became our minister. Clearly we are not getting it totally wrong. A good few of this group were not attending any church regularly before coming to Union Chapel. Perhaps they might like to tell us why they started to attend and how their faith has been awakened or re-awakened.

Steve Roberts 
Jan/Feb 2000