I have a new
standard for engaging with people. This standard is designed to help move the
conversation somewhere, instead of having it lie stagnant in the hopeless back
and forth of two people with entrenched positions. There are several types of
conversations that go on concerning Christian apologetics. There are
appropriate times/places and formats for all of these types. There is a type
that engages every anti-Christian argument, and that will try to answer any and
every objection that comes from every skeptic. I have certainly done plenty of
that in the last few years.
However, I am to
the point in my life where I no longer find these conversations satisfying,
intellectually or spiritually. I am more concerned with two types of apologetic
conversations: helping believers understand and defend the faith, and removing
intellectual barriers for skeptics to come to Christ. Now wait a minute, you might think, how is this latter category any different than the original category
you say you’ve moved beyond? Good question. This type of discussion seeks
only to help people who are genuinely interested in becoming Christians.
Essentially, I will ask some variant of the question, “If your intellectual
obstacles were removed, would you become a Christian?” and “What would it take
for you to become a Christian?”
Assuming the
answer to the first question is “yes,” I would seek to understand their answer
to the second. Perhaps it is something like “I need good evidence that Jesus is
who Christians claim him to be.” I would then attempt to reach the heart of the
matter (in this case, what constitutes evidence, and then what constitutes good
evidence). If the skeptic doesn’t or won’t capitulate on these fundamental
issues, then I just won’t engage him anymore. Why? Because if he doesn’t
understand these issues, then he won’t understand anything that follows which
relies on these issues. If he does understand but won’t admit it, then he’s not
really an honest skeptic after all. It’s a simple, mental flowchart that I have
developed for helping me discern which conversations to enter and when to end
the ones I do.
I am simply
tired of so much wasted energy on people who literally will never change their
minds, no matter what was said or done. I’m also secure enough in my beliefs
that I don’t think they’ll have anything new to add that’s also weighty enough
for me to consider. I’d rather invest time in training believers in how to
defend the Gospel, or in strengthening believers in their understanding in
Christian theology.
Now what about
the Gospel itself? What about evangelism? Well I certainly won’t give up on
that. We should never give up on the power of the Gospel. While it may be a
waste of time to intellectually discuss issues that someone will not fairly
hear out, it’s not usually a waste of time to evangelize and pray. Let the
Gospel have its work; we cannot forget that there are so many non-intellectual
factors at work in both conversion and de-conversion. I’m also not claiming
that everyone do exactly what I have done. Sometimes, there’s value to be
gained, especially by beginners, to discuss weightier or popular level issues,
to hone their apologetic skills. You should just evaluate where you are, and
where you’d like to be. Then, take the steps to get there!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remember to see the comment guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. God bless and thanks for dropping by!