On Evangelism

My good friend John Stegeman posted a blog about facebook evangelists that I want to elaborate on.

John is against the bible-beating, churchy evangelists since they usually don't succeed in converting people, and they end up alienating people in general. His point is that it's better to maintain friendships by using a light touch, and offering conversion only when your friend initiates the conversation.

My point was that, if you have a duty to convert, then shouldn't you go absolutely balls out on it? Isn't anything less a copout, since your putting a secular relationship before your duty to God? And doesn't that say something about Christianity in general, and how it's adherents are able to strike a happy balance while living in a less than totally Christian environment?

I want to elaborate on that last point a little more. In my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are quite reasonable and well integrated individuals, who really have no interest in getting "all up in my business". However, I think the reason why they're well rounded and balanced about spiritual and personal matters is because they're choosy about which doctrines they want to put into practice, and rigidly they do so.

But isn't that a serious theological problem? If you can't obey Christ's teachings literally, wholely and without reservation in every aspect of your life without ending up as a nutty evangelical, doesn't that indicate a flaw in the whole doctrine/ethos/what-have-you?

Kookie analogy
It's like having a recipe for cake, with some instructions that are clearly wrong (perhaps some elements of cookie-making have made their way into the recipe). If you follow them word for word, you'll end up with a horrible culinary chimera, a mix of cake and cookie that's in no way satisfying. But if you are using your own best judgment (say 1 egg instead of 3) to fix the recipe, how do you know what the end product is supposed to look like? Can it even properly be called a recipe?