Sunday, July 30, 2006
A Method of Evangelism
Tim Keller has written a short piece on how to do evangelism/apologetics with urbans/postmoderns.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The polar ice caps are melting!!
But that has nothing to do with this post. I saw a couple of interesting things on TV Friday night. On Bill Moyers on Faith and Reason, Salman Rushdie was being interviewed. I only caught about 20 minutes, but I learned that he spoke recently at Calvin College at a writer’s conference. Moyers mentioned that some were concerned about having a self-avowed atheist speak at a Christian college lest he somehow corrupt weak-minded students into being led astray (or words to that effect). Those concerned probably know more about atheism than Rushdie knows about Christianity (his knowledge of the godhead is woefully uninformed, calling the concept “polytheism”). They know that a number of Christian youth (or even older folk) have, under the influence of persuasive atheists, been weakened in their faith or have even left the faith altogether. So, my question: should those who hold to atheism or for that matter any non-Christian perspective, be permitted to speak at a Christian college (not just at a writer’s conference but also in an academic setting where many students would be exposed to the speaker’s ideas)?
My response would be a qualified yes. The college is the entity in that situation which is controlling the overall message. College officials can bracket the atheist with whatever message they want to give. I presume professors would be prepared to engage in serious and deep discussions about the speaker’s topic and general position, as well as be prepared to answer questions from students. Under those kinds of circumstances, let speakers from all different philosophical and theological stripes be welcomed. One could point to the prohibition in 2 John 10 about allowing false teachers into a house church. But there, I take it the false teacher is passing himself off as a true teacher of the faith. In the case of someone like Rushdie, all concerned know his beliefs.
In some cases, in fact, Christians could themselves have an influence on the atheist (or non-Christian); at least one would hope that this would be the case. One example of this is Antony Flew. He has been invited to speak at Biola University on a number of occasions. What, and how much, influence the Christians at Biola had on Flew in his change of position about God, I don’t know. (see an interview with Flew) All I know is that the one who changed positions was the atheist (albeit only to deism, but deism is closer to theism than it is to atheism).
The danger (if I can call it that) of not being exposed to different ideas and points of views can be seen in various ways. One is in the political sphere. Right after Moyers’ show, I saw 20/20, where George Stephanopoulos examined the polarization of American politics. In 1976, 64% of members of Congress voted with their party. In 2005, that number rose to 89%. Today’s Congress is the most polarized in over a hundred years. The danger is that polarization stifles true debate. People simply end up shouting slogans past each other. In studies that were featured on the show, people who were like-minded ended up associating mainly with each other, pushing people from both sides further apart, not only in opinion but also in geography. Communities appear to be becoming more politically polarized, with landslide victories in particular counties going to one party over another. And with today’s opportunities for mobility, moving to a neighbourhood where the people share your beliefs is becoming easier than ever before.
Another example I heard was regarding theology/bible students. In a talk given by D.A. Carson, he mentioned that in his experience, the theology students most likely to lose their faith were ones who came out of very conservative Christian colleges where the teaching amounts to something like “don’t read (ie. be corrupted by) the works of that ‘liberal theologian/atheologian’- it’s the work of the devil!!!" When, upon going on to graduate studies at a secular university, they actually read the devil, they find that he’s not so dangerous sounding at all. In fact, he sound rather reasonable and balanced. So, whether suddenly or gradually, all that conservative Christian teaching is called into question. So says Carson. A good example of this is Bart Ehrman who went to conservative undergraduate schools but is now an atheist. (see a debate he had recently regarding the historical evidence of the resurrection).
Also, I spoke recently to a Christian youth teacher. She says that the Christian teens she’s trying to teach know next to nothing about Christianity. Nothing. Why? Most of them have gone to Christian elementary and high school. It seems the Christian education they receive is so a part of their usual background noise that it hardly gets noticed. Plus, the teachers at the Christian schools seem to be assuming that the kids are getting educated at home or at church. Well, someone’s dropping the ball here. One can anticipate the problems they’ll encounter if they go on to a secular college. This insularity, this existence in Christian-only enclaves poses a difficulty, I think, for students as well as their Christian educators. Exposure to non-Christian points of view, under controlled circumstances, could shake them out of spiritual lethargy. On the other hand, some of the students could still end up leaving the faith. Is that a risk worth taking? It might be a tough call, but I think so. But then what do I know?
‘Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.’ (Prov. 22:6)
My response would be a qualified yes. The college is the entity in that situation which is controlling the overall message. College officials can bracket the atheist with whatever message they want to give. I presume professors would be prepared to engage in serious and deep discussions about the speaker’s topic and general position, as well as be prepared to answer questions from students. Under those kinds of circumstances, let speakers from all different philosophical and theological stripes be welcomed. One could point to the prohibition in 2 John 10 about allowing false teachers into a house church. But there, I take it the false teacher is passing himself off as a true teacher of the faith. In the case of someone like Rushdie, all concerned know his beliefs.
In some cases, in fact, Christians could themselves have an influence on the atheist (or non-Christian); at least one would hope that this would be the case. One example of this is Antony Flew. He has been invited to speak at Biola University on a number of occasions. What, and how much, influence the Christians at Biola had on Flew in his change of position about God, I don’t know. (see an interview with Flew) All I know is that the one who changed positions was the atheist (albeit only to deism, but deism is closer to theism than it is to atheism).
The danger (if I can call it that) of not being exposed to different ideas and points of views can be seen in various ways. One is in the political sphere. Right after Moyers’ show, I saw 20/20, where George Stephanopoulos examined the polarization of American politics. In 1976, 64% of members of Congress voted with their party. In 2005, that number rose to 89%. Today’s Congress is the most polarized in over a hundred years. The danger is that polarization stifles true debate. People simply end up shouting slogans past each other. In studies that were featured on the show, people who were like-minded ended up associating mainly with each other, pushing people from both sides further apart, not only in opinion but also in geography. Communities appear to be becoming more politically polarized, with landslide victories in particular counties going to one party over another. And with today’s opportunities for mobility, moving to a neighbourhood where the people share your beliefs is becoming easier than ever before.
Another example I heard was regarding theology/bible students. In a talk given by D.A. Carson, he mentioned that in his experience, the theology students most likely to lose their faith were ones who came out of very conservative Christian colleges where the teaching amounts to something like “don’t read (ie. be corrupted by) the works of that ‘liberal theologian/atheologian’- it’s the work of the devil!!!" When, upon going on to graduate studies at a secular university, they actually read the devil, they find that he’s not so dangerous sounding at all. In fact, he sound rather reasonable and balanced. So, whether suddenly or gradually, all that conservative Christian teaching is called into question. So says Carson. A good example of this is Bart Ehrman who went to conservative undergraduate schools but is now an atheist. (see a debate he had recently regarding the historical evidence of the resurrection).
Also, I spoke recently to a Christian youth teacher. She says that the Christian teens she’s trying to teach know next to nothing about Christianity. Nothing. Why? Most of them have gone to Christian elementary and high school. It seems the Christian education they receive is so a part of their usual background noise that it hardly gets noticed. Plus, the teachers at the Christian schools seem to be assuming that the kids are getting educated at home or at church. Well, someone’s dropping the ball here. One can anticipate the problems they’ll encounter if they go on to a secular college. This insularity, this existence in Christian-only enclaves poses a difficulty, I think, for students as well as their Christian educators. Exposure to non-Christian points of view, under controlled circumstances, could shake them out of spiritual lethargy. On the other hand, some of the students could still end up leaving the faith. Is that a risk worth taking? It might be a tough call, but I think so. But then what do I know?
‘Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.’ (Prov. 22:6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)