The generation of my grandparents are notoriously quiet on the matter of religion. It's up there with 'death' in terms of conversation killers. Though perhaps politics is the better equivalent. Unlike death which is to be ignored, opinions on politics - like religion - are often held with fervour but not appropriate conversation in refined company. Perhaps it is the hangover of the fierce Catholic/Protestant divide in which my grandparents were raised. While the division is still in existence theologically, it is no longer so ferocious in dividing individual families, politics and even suburbs. Whatever the case, what you believed was a 'personal' thing and not a regular topic for conversation.
My generation predominantly remains reluctant to talk about religion. Yet this reticence comes from a different place to our grandparents. In a society blurred by postmodern thought, what you believe remains a 'personal' thing, not because it's impolite conversation fodder but because what you believe is truth for you. There is no need to discuss what is clearly subjective, and equally valid.
Experience tells me that my friends don't truly reason out what they believe. So to get a bit philosophical for a moment, they still hold beliefs, but it's not a fundamentally reasoned outcome. There is no doubt this comes in part through the failure of substantial discussion with others, and so in unconscious ignorance they remain. The destruction of truth philosophically leads them to a subjective truth which they believe to be true (the postmodernism hasn't reached it's true practical endpoint of believing nothing) but the relative nature of belief means these beliefs are held unexamined.
Now this is where it gets tricky.
No doubt there are times I take my heritage for granted. And yet part of that heritage has been people explaining the reason why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe as Christians (Especially in terms of what we do it is often explained through changing rather than merely justifying what is currently done). So for example, the reason the majority of our time of gathering is spent studying the Scriptures is fairly firm in my mind both through the biblical imperative and the historical tradition on which we stand. And really as the Bible is studied, the meaning of why we do what we do, and why we believe what we believe is illuminated further. I am constantly being sharpened in my understanding.
So how can I appropriately engage with my friends about Jesus? My explanation of why I believe what I believe comes across as arrogance. Or is met with indifference. Perhaps even more bizarrely is the thought process that as I defend what I believe, it is as if I am accusing them of attacking me. Inquiries as to their beliefs are met with puzzlement over why it matters.
Is it all about finding missing bricks in their belief wall, in the hope the whole thing comes crashing down? Is it merely proclaiming the truth that will get people to engage in deeper thought.
I'm not normally this philosophical in my practice. I just find what works through trial and error and talking with others. But there's a big roadblock I'm finding here.
Ambivalence is really hard to evangelise. Angry disagreement I can counter, but failure to engage is a different beast altogether.
Seems like an interesting train of thought...
ReplyDeleteHere's some random observations:
So, once people would treat religion as private because on some level or another they knew that something had to true, everything else had to be false, but they lacked the certainty or will to defend their belief...
Now, people treat spirituality as private because on some level or another they contend that every person's spirituality is equally legitimate and that nothing is false, so it can be described but the concept of defence is a non-sequeter...
In terms of broader truths, there are no spiritual seekers, there are only the spiritually provoked. God pokes His stick in people's cages, rattles it around and says 'here I am', which is not always received well.
I don't believe people (as a whole) are any different to the way that the Bible describes them.
What do you make of the uncounted numbers of people who listened to the preaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter and the rest, went home, cracked open a cold one and just sat on their couches?
I think you've captured my line of thinking. Perhaps you have revealed that I think in the category of there being a 'type' of person who will respond to the gospel positively.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I think I'm wrestling with the idea that somehow in order to proclaim Jesus I need to first break down whatever barriers the people have erected to prevent them (humanly speaking) from accepting the truth. I guess the biblical emphasis is on the doing of the proclamation in a context of righteous living, and on the content of proclamation, rather than the method per se.