Comment response

Because the site would not allow me to post this comment (as the character length is over the maximum), I've given it its own post.

Ahh. You make a good reply.

You aptly point out that there is no small moral value in the act of prostehlytizing in the name of one's faith, especially when it fulfills a fundamental tenet. And this value is separate and independent from the success of the prosthelytizer. But in the same token, the degree of success is arguably the more significant value relative to the ultimate aims of the faith (again, in the Christian tradition). Yet clearly one attempting to spread his faith cannot be held solely responsible for the decisions of those he shares with to accept or reject his message. However he can be held responsible for his motivations for doing so, as well as the extent to which the particularities of his methods discourage acceptance amongst his audience (I suppose you could say that questioning the motivations of a street evangelist is equivalent to questioning their authenticity, although I think authenticity is a rather loaded term).

The answer, in my opinion then, to your question of whether "abrasive truth delivery" can be morally good depends on how you balance the values of obedience of the speaker and acceptance of the message (which under these circumstances could also be described as newfound salvation). A hesitation here might be that because the speaker cannot force acceptance of their message, then the only value for which they are responsible is obedience, which in this case is to deliver the message without distortion or falsification. This would probably be most genuinely accomplished by simply reading the scriptures aloud, allowing the audience to apply their own interpretations. But, given the impracticalities of reading the Bible out loud on the street to strangers, what usually occurs is that the interpretation of the speaker becomes the bulk of the message, and consequently the message inherits not only their personal ideology but their tones and mannerisms, and is confined to the limited portion that they choose to present. So it seems that although the one delivering the message can be only that--the deliverer of the message--they make a series of choices by which they shape the message, giving it a feel and a sound a certain appeal (or lack of appeal). In this way I believe the speaker becomes responsible for the second value, or for the acceptance of the message, to the extent that their personal choices regarding their delivery--not the message itself--negatively affects the audience's reception. And because it is my argument that the reception of the audience, given the significance of the decision before them, is the greatest value in this picture, then a delivery of the message that impedes this value is not morally good.

The crucial factor, as you mentioned, is whether an abrasive delivery, as opposed to a gentle-handed or any other kind, is more or less effective. And as far as what effectiveness means in this scenario, I think it cannot be divorced from its regular meaning, which in oratory would be the positive reception of the audience to the substance of the message, or the tendency of the message to move the audience in the some way that corresponds to the message's aims. To equate effectiveness of the message to simply its delivery by the speaker is to equate effectiveness to the moral value of the act of delivery, which moots the entire question of effect on the audience, which I am unwilling to do.

Now it is clear that the effectiveness of a message is largely dependent on the particularities of the audience, and every speaker must accept that they cannot always predict or influence these particularities before the message is delivered. But that does not mean that there are not general truths about audiences (whether it be a crowd or a single person on the street) that can assist in making a message more effective. These general truths, I think, are identifiable by considering simple human qualities and characteristics that affect perception. For instance, the fact that most people are repelled by judgmental accusations is obvious, and as equally obvious is the fact that most people respond well to kindness, respect, and acceptance. And although, especially when we're talking about street evangelists, the content of the message should not be altered to fit the audience, it should not be forgotten that the message is broad and deep, and has many facets that appeal to secular audiences, as well as some that scare and anger them. The truth of the latter is not diminished because an audience refuses to accept it, but it may very well be that the same audience, with the right foundation of understanding and opportunity for consideration, could be moved to embrace the harsher truths which the message presents--truths which are not best shared by a loud and judgmental voice of a passing stranger.

So yes, abrasive truth is still truth, and one can only lead an audience to water (so to speak). But if people are more susceptible to persuasion when approached a certain way, to ignore these sensibilities is not only reduce effectiveness, but to choose a style of delivery which is not necessitated by the message itself, and for what? Because it suits the speaker? Surely there is a better way.