An important thing to remember about apologetics and debate is that it rarely happens in a vacuum. Whatever position of conviction we hold to, it's important to remember that the people we're talking to are not mere cyphers for a point of view - they are people with real lives, struggles, dreams and experiences.
When they come to us with certain erroneous assumptions, it's most worthwhile to take a step back and realize that it's unlikely they will hold those assumptions out of sheer stubborn contrariness.
I recall a number of times when I have been in heated, passionate conversation with someone on one topic, and also been privy to knowledge about a very painful and difficult situation in their life. While it didn't make them any more correct in their belief, it was an insight into why they were fighting the corner they were, and why that belief was important to them at that time.
Now, that doesn't absolve me of the need to speak the truth - in many ways, it's even more vital that I do, because the truth will be more comfort to them in the long run - but it does remind me that my motives should be about reaching real people, not winning an abstract point.
Different people respond to different means of apologetic argument. Jesus could be blunt and to-the-point, as he was with Nicodemus, for example; but he could also be gentle and personal, as he was with the woman at the well.
In neither case was Christ concerned with winning an argument - He was concerned with winning a soul. When we 'speak the truth in love', I believe this is what is meant. Love is our motivation; true, sacrificial Christian love. We want lost souls to see Christ, and through Him gain eternal life.
We must passionately defend the truth of the gospel and the glory of God - we must do so because it's the only loving thing to do, if we are to have any hope of being effective evangelists. However, that is the goal. We are reaching out as the means of a loving God to save the poor lost people of this earth.
Be bold as you speak to others about Him. But remember these words of Jesus:
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. Luk 4:18
These are the people we speak to; love them.
5/19/2007
A few further thoughts about apologetics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 joining in the spirit of things:
Very excellent words to take to heart.
And when we share this way, we please the Lord, and glorify the Father, and that's what life's about.
"A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench"
Don, thankyou for that - that's actually the other verse I had in mind when I posted this.
I think it is far too easy to forget that there are real people on the other side of our computer screens.
Excellent words Libbie, no question about it.
Now I do have a thought. I wonder how you might address how sarcasm fits into this type of address we're supposed to have toward the lost or those in error? Like me, you have a sharp sense of humor, and although you didn't use a sarcastic tone in this post at all (unless you're so smooth I missed it, lol) lots and lots and LOTS of Christians do use heavy sarcasm when addressing the lost and those in error, and I just can't see how that blends with sacrificial Christian love, gentleness, longsuffering, etc.
So, what do you say?
(I know, I only ask the easy questions). ;-)
I think it depends who you're speaking to and what about. Frank's very good at using cutting humour to puncture the pomposity of a patently ridiculous worldview, but it isn't his only means of argument, and it isn't something he does all the time.
So, I suppose, it can be a tool, but shouldn't be employed constantly, and people should be very careful before they attempt it, because it can be so grossly misused to merely prop up an ego.
Sarcasm is often a staple of english humour, but I've often found it doesn't translate well online, because the whole point is the contrasting tone of voice. So if the heart of apologetics is to reach people, it's not the most effective thing to use.
'Tis true, this post is as much to me as to anyone, for sure.
Thanks for your thoughts on that Libbie - I do aprpeciate it.
I know for me it's often been hard to find the balance in translating that humor online, so I liked what you had to say about that.
:-)
I remember reading an oldfashioned religious magazine for The Young when i was, well, young, and it was making the very firm point that you should never let yourself be mocked or sneered out of Christian belief or practice: scorn, it said, was one of the most powerful weapons in the devil's armoury, but you need to steel yourself against it.
I think this might be relevant to the point about sarcasm - well, different people mean different things by sarcasm, but if it's done with the intention of making your interlocutor look stupid, it should surely be avoided - if you've been on the receiving end of scorn/mockery yourself, you'll know it's unpleasant and doesn't even make you want to change your mind. And if it *is* true that scorn is a weapon in the devil's armoury, shouldn't Christians try to avoid wielding it? Injecting a bit of humour to lighten the atmosphere (so that you don't sound too pompous yourself, perhaps!) is different obviously.
(Isn't it one of the redeeming features of English sarcasm that it's usually self-parodying?) :)
Post a Comment