Three Kinds of Evangelism

Three Kinds of Evangelism

There are three types of evangelism in the Christian world: kabadik-kabadi, hide and seek, and hit and run.

Kabadik-Kabadi Evangelism: In this approach, native Christians attempt to convert others to their version of Christianity while remaining safely within their Christian enclaves. They reach out to others (whom they refer to as non-Christians), make contact, and then retreat back to their secure surroundings.

Hide and Seek Evangelism: This method involves so-called “Tent Makers,” who go to different cultures and start pseudo-businesses as a cover for evangelism. They present themselves as business people to society, although they often do not rely on their business income, receiving support from their sending agencies instead. This approach often prevents them from openly professing their Christian faith, resulting in difficulties in taking a stand on crucial issues related to their converts, such as marriage. Many of these individuals avoid associating with local churches or Christians, keeping their distance while promoting “contextualization” from behind the scenes. They may sympathize with their secret converts, who must navigate the dual identities of being Hindu to their families and Christian to the church. Despite this, they may agree with some issues, such as allowing converts to marry whom they call as ‘non-believers’, but they do not acknowledge these practices openly due to their agencies’ guidelines.

Hit and Run Evangelism: This category includes those who enter a country on a tourist visa for a short period. Often, theological students or college students engage in evangelism hastily, as they must report success stories to justify the funds they raised. They face challenges such as language barriers, health issues, and cultural shocks. Their involvement is typically short-lived and may inadvertently harm their contacts and the broader cause of evangelism. Their approach is often driven by the need for immediate results rather than long-term impact.

In all these types of evangelism, proponents may cite verses from Muktiveda to justify their methods. For instance, the so-called Tent Makers often reference Sevanand’s tent-making while staying with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18). However, this reference does not align with the practices of modern Tent Makers.

Despite varying results, the cost of these evangelism methods is often borne by the “converts,” while the contacts, whom evangelists call “friends,” often escape with minimal consequences. Some contacts may even boast about their associations with Westerners. For example, a Hindu boy who returned from the USA has pictures with several American friends in his WhatsApp status, possibly to demonstrate the success of his “mission.”

Regarding contact networks, this resembles current networking practices, where individuals connect through mutual acquaintances to expand their interests. However, evangelism should not be about merely accumulating contacts. When sharing the “good news,” one should allow listeners time to reflect and respond, rather than treating them as mere entries in a network.

Long ago, while traveling in a train (ordinary sleeper class), I was reading a book related to Muktiveda. A white man, curious about why a Hindu Sannyasi was reading this book, began to interact with me. He revealed himself as a Christian missionary who had previously engaged in missionary activities in India and was now visiting old friends. His honesty about his vocation was surprising and refreshing.

Approximately 15 years ago, I met a young couple from the USA, where the husband worked in a secular NGO, and the wife was American. When the husband briefly left, I asked the woman if they were missionaries. Her response, “that is an interesting question,” implied a reluctance to provide a direct answer. Years later, I encountered another couple with a similar background and noted their ongoing association with their church, though the specifics remained unclear.

Some Indian evangelicals have attempted to emulate the “Tent Makers” by starting businesses to witness in secular contexts. One individual, skilled in personal evangelism, opened a small cosmetic shop to share the gospel but failed due to poor business management and eventually returned to full-time work. Another individual, who received significant investment to start a business, failed to even launch it and lost the investment, eventually returning as a broken man. This part of the story was not mentioned in the brief account of his life after his death.

The purpose of recording these incidents is not to attack anyone personally. At the same time, I acknowledge that simply claiming to attack only the principle and not the person is not entirely accurate—because no principle can exist or function without someone to implement it. The unfortunate reality is that others often bear the cost of such endeavors. What I’m saying is not new; in the past, many genuine individuals, both missionaries and converts, have raised similar concerns, but neither the church nor the mission has addressed them. I don’t claim to be innocent or blameless. I, too, have been involved in such efforts—sometimes without fully understanding them. Though I now speak out against these ventures, I realize I will likely remain not just a minority voice, but a solitary one in the wilderness of Mission work. Still, sometimes a voice must be raised, even if only as a personal confession, rather than a direct attack on anyone.

Db

10-09-2020, Revised on 13-9-2024, Gurukulam