Evangelism is one of the few words in the English language that features an antiquated connotation.
When people hear the word evangelism, they typically think of a fanatical born-again Christian. The Wikipedia entry for the term describes the practice as having the stated “intention of converting others to the Christian faith.” Miriam-Webster defines evangelism as “the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ.”
Historically, these descriptions have been true; however, they are quickly becoming obsolete in our current culture. The powerful influence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has essentially been relegated within the four walls of the church. None of our cultural institutions prominently consult the Bible when exercising judgment. In fact, the Oklahoma courts were instructed to remove the Ten Commandments statue during the summer of 2015.
Yet we continue to exclusively associate evangelism with Christianity. This is absurd. Where is this Christian evangelism about which Wikipedia and Miriam-Webster speak?
The foremost definition of the word “evangelism” is actually buried at the end of its dictionary entry.
Evangelism is the zealous advocacy of a cause, often one that features a militant or crusading fervor.
If you want to look for a modern day evangelist, look no further than Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton. Mrs. Albright proudly and unapologetically pronounced her militant zeal championing her causes on two separate occasions over the last year.
The most recent of these came today when she hit Twitter with the following two tweets:
I was raised Catholic, became Episcopalian & found out later my family was Jewish. I stand ready to register as Muslim in #solidarity.
There is no fine print on the Statue of Liberty. America must remain open to people of all faiths & backgrounds. #RefugeesWelcome
As evidenced by these two tweets, Ms. Albright is openly proselytizing her personal belief, faith, and conviction for the sole purpose of converting the hearts and minds of millions of people. This is the literal definition of evangelism, and we would be wise to begin learning how to identify such behavior.
Madeleine Albright is indeed a cultural evangelist.
Evangelism always features a faith in the unseen. In Mrs. Albright’s case, her faith is that America would benefit from an immigration policy that welcomes “refugees” from cultures whose regimes openly chant “Death to America!” This has yet to be definitively seen.
In fact, the early evidence suggests the contrary, as the volume of militant Islamic terror attacks on our soil has only risen since welcoming increasing numbers of middle-eastern “refugees.” How many shootings such as the ones in Fort Hood or San Bernardino did we have before 1965? Where is the history of bombings inspired by militant-Islam on American soil from the early 1900s, when we had virtually no record of immigrants coming from the Middle East?
As defined earlier, evangelism also features the zealous advocacy of a cause. Ms. Albright divulges her desire to convert the hearts and minds of men and women by using the hashtag #solidarity.
The actions of our former Secretary of State should serve as the caption describing the word “evangelism.” Her example is just one of countless that shows how cultural evangelism has become the most prominent form of evangelism in 21st century America.
If progressives were truly honest, wouldn’t they extend the supposed “church-and-state restriction” to cover all instances in which faith becomes intertwined with domestic policy? Since they never will, why do we voluntarily choose to withhold our evangelism of the Gospel from our places of work and education?
I realize I am beating a dead horse here, but I must drive this point home. Cultural evangelism happens anytime an individual proselytizes his or her personal belief, faith, and conviction upon others for the sole purpose of converting their hearts and minds to support the advancement of a cause.
Mrs. Albright actually evangelized on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton last February when she said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Unfortunately, I was unable to locate whether she was a practicing Catholic, Jew, or Episcopalian at the time of this declaration. I suppose that matters little, however, as she now prepares to embrace the tenets of the Muslim faith.
I thought Christians were the ones who warned that hell awaits those who do not conform to a certain ideology? Wouldn’t it be hypocritical and duplicitous to scorn Christians for this proclivity while applauding it from an esteemed former high-ranking bureaucrat?
Then again, I suppose this is what we should come to expect from someone who changes their religious profession only after first consulting with the weathervane of popular opinion.