In case you don’t know me well, that’s not condescension you smell in the title. It’s sarcasm. I cringe at the thought of a how-to manual on interacting with the scary foreign monster called “Atheist”. I do, however, think Christians generally suck at engaging in spiritual dialogue with our more skeptical neighbors. So I am here to give you a pointer or two. In this way, the title is totally serious.
1. Stop Arguing. Not only are you damaging your witness by demonstrating the fruits of the sinful nature (Galatians 5:20) and neglecting the wisdom of the entire second half of Proverbs, but you’re probably never going to make any headway. Also (according to my personal observation), you’re probably just not as smart or well-read as your sparring partner. So really, just give it up. It looks ridiculous. Please don’t confuse defending the Christian faith for defending your own honor and intellect. Grace poured out on the cross means you never have to defend yourself ever again. There is One who stands in your defense already (Romans 8:33-34).
2. Humbly Inform. 1 Peter 3:15 says that you should be prepared to give a gentle answer to those who question your faith. That requires that you actually know some Scripture or have a compelling story to tell. Whether you see that as a tremendous opportunity or a tremendous threat should be revealing. Skeptics tend to have some legitimate intellectual hurdles to faith, usually because the Christians who get the most media attention tend to sound like complete idiots. Idiocy gets ratings. Lucky us. You get to be a reasonable counter-example, and at least the Christian faith can become something reasonable people can actually believe.
Mind you, our faith will never be all that reasonable. We believe in a God who perfectly loved us from before the beginning of time and gave of Himself at tremendous cost that we might be with him, while we were all too busy pursuing other lovers to really notice. That will rightfully always be a foolish message to a world that knows nothing of grace (1 Corinthians 1:21-25). That’s something to be embraced, not fought against. A reasonable person admits this foolishness with confidence, and their reasonable neighbor respects that.
3. Ask Questions. And not with the intent of finding weaknesses in their worldview so you can shame them with the ridiculousness of their beliefs. That’s how the world operates, remember? You play by a different set of rules. And in case you’ve already forgotten, what you believe is ridiculous too. Ask questions about how your friend came to believe as they did. They’re basing their beliefs on the same things you are, and you would do well to know their story. It reveals the deep things of their heart and soul. And who knows, perhaps as they explore this matter, they might even convince themselves of the foolishness of their beliefs. And then you look real good, all shrewd as a snake and innocent as a dove (Matthew 10:16). But don’t get your hopes up.
OK, so that was a real quick how-to guide. To be honest, it feels really incomplete because I haven’t exactly motivated these behaviors beyond the surface meaning of the texts mentioned. In the next installment, I’m going to take a peek behind the curtain as to why these are so important.
Related posts:
Mikey, I love your blog entries!! Ahh can’t wait until South Side gets you back!
I am unclear what you mean by (1), and whether or not you offer any reasons. It’s perfectly possible someone is “never going to make any headway” doing all sorts of valuable things – say, witnessing or advocating for the poor. As for the first Scripture passage, surely Paul’s debates in Athens aren’t condemned in Galatians 5:20?
As for “It looks ridiculous,” you cannot hope to seriously rebuke debate by adopting the spirit of the scoffer.
I get the feeling that what you actually dislike is a certain kind of debate, a debate modified with some unseemly adjective, like arrogant debate, or non-gentle debate.
Good point, Josh. The point was “Stop arguing”. I wouldn’t consider Paul’s debates in Athens as arguing/quarreling. Remember, I distinguished defending the faith (a good idea) from defending ourselves (an affront to grace). It’s why my point was “stop arguing” instead of “stop debating”. To me, “arguing” has a slightly different connotation.
“I wouldn’t consider Paul’s debates in Athens as arguing/quarreling.”
Paul’s arguments in Athens are exactly the kind of debate one would have with someone who disagrees with your views on God. There doesn’t seem to be a coherent difference to me.
You did not distinguish between defending the faith and defending ourselves. You simply claimed there is a difference and that this difference is relevant. In fact you spoke of it in a self-appointed authoritative tone directed at some imaginary interlocutor. I wonder: who are you talking about? To pick one example out of many, Richard Swinburne wrote a book called “The Resurrection of God Incarnate” where he philosophically defends the proposition, “God became incarnate and was raised from the dead.” There is no self-defense going on there. The same is true when an atheist questions the truth value of some other proposition, and the follower of Jesus defends it.
In any case even if someone is defending “themselves” against a claim like “You are irrational,” what they are of course actually defending is the propositions which are supposed to make them irrational, and this is not hard to see.
This reminds me: The way people use the words rationality and irrationality are deeply connected to the truth of propositions. In light of this, I strongly suggest you cease asserting that the Gospel is irrational, as it is like saying, “There aren’t good reasons to think the Gospel is true.”