|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion How to talk to our non-Christian friendsTim Horn says: 'Let their books raise the questions'It appears to me that it is becoming harder to ‘share the gospel’ with my non-Christian friends. Any direct approach (i.e. a mention of Jesus) is no longer met with polite (or even impolite) interest, leading to some form of discussion. It is just met with indifference and an unwillingness to continue the conversation. In his book Death in the City, Francis Schaeffer put forward a different approach. He put it like this: ‘There is a time, and ours is such a time, when a negative message is needed before anything positive can begin. There must first be the message of judgement, the tearing down. There are times when we cannot expect a constructive revolution if we begin by over-emphasising the positive message… Unless [our friend] understands what is wrong, he will not be ready to listen to and understand the positive. I believe that much of our evangelistic and personal work is not clear simply because we are too anxious to get to the answer without having a man realise the real cause of his sickness, which is true moral guilt (and not just psychological guilt feelings) in the presence of God’. First exampleMy first attempt, a couple of years ago, had interesting results. I met up with six of my old university friends and we all went for lunch. The conversation meandered around until the subject of the Iraq war was mentioned. Everyone was scandalised by the apparent lack of justification for the war. I asked them to consider this: ‘From your evolutionary perspective, isn’t this just a case of the more highly evolved nations prospering at the expense of the less developed ones, and shouldn’t you just relax and let history/evolution take its course?’. This, predictably, provoked outrage. I continued the logic: ‘Since we are merely rather intelligent animals, why should we get terribly concerned about killing people? None of us (bar one vegetarian) complains about the injustice caused to the poor cow/chicken that we are all eating.’ I asked them to justify their ‘high’ view of man. Discussion moved on until I again challenged them to tell me why they felt so strongly about right and wrong, since we were just an insignificant part of a vast and random universe: ‘Surely the randomness and purposelessness of the universe make any absolute right and wrong impossible’. As lunch ended, one of my friends challenged me to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, as this would show me how right/wrong and morals could be derived from a chance universe... Over the next month, I read The Selfish Gene and sent a critique of its naive and grossly optimistic view of evolution and of its appallingly crude argument for ‘morals’ (using statistics!). This led to more correspondence, but this time with my friends trying to justify their beliefs rather than me trying to ‘sell’ Christianity, as had always been the case in the past. I have to confess that as yet they show no progress towards Christianity. I pray, however, that as they have been made aware of the difficulties of their own beliefs, then at least they may start to see a need for it. Suggested booksThis experience made me realise the value that non-Christian books can add, because they unintentionally demonstrate the inadequacy of a non-Christian worldview. I have therefore taken to asking my non-Christian friends to recommend books that they have read. This gives me the chance to read and think through the implications of the book before going back with some comments to initiate further conversation. Here, for a start, are some books which show how this method could work. In The Consolation of Philosophy(1), Alan de Botton looks at some famous philosophers (Socrates, Seneca, Schopenhauer, Nietzche), and draws out how their philosophy of life can help us to approach problems in our lives. There are plenty of quotes, which could be used to start discussion: ‘There is nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living’ (p.69); ‘Why is the unreasoning goat content and the reasoning human not?’ (p.121); ‘We will cease to be angry when we cease to be hopeful’ (Seneca); ‘human existence must be some kind of error’ (Schopenhauer). An initial criticism is that de Botton never takes the philosophical ideas to their logical conclusion and that, if he did, then the book would cease to offer any ‘feel-good’ advice. Generation-X(2), by Douglas Coupland is a ‘story’ about three drifters, Andy, Dag and Claire, who do their ‘mcjobs’, complain about the state of the world and try to find something meaningful to do (or talk about). The thrust of the book is about meaninglessness. ‘I want to hear some small moment from your life that proves you’re really alive’ (p.91). The presupposition of both these books is that there should be some meaning or purpose in life. Without God, this is surely not true. Both also just assume that this broken world is in its normal state. One of the most comforting elements of the Christian message is that this world is abnormal. It was originally good (and the traces of this are all around us), but has been corrupted by our rebellion. Feminism is possibly a dangerous ground to start a conversation, but in The Female Eunuch(3), Germaine Greer is outspoken in defence of women’s rights. The ‘righteous’ anger, ‘moral’ indignation and desire for freedom that drive her writing are evident on every page. Again, there are plenty of quotations that could provide starting points for discussion. ‘Human love is a function of narcissism’ (p.158). Quoting Nietzche, Greer praises ‘the wholesome healthy selfishness that wells from a powerful soul’ (p.164). ‘Love from its very nature must be transitory’ (p.274). ‘If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry’ (p.358). Perhaps the most obvious place to challenge Greer is in her distortion of love (this has become self-love or selfishness) and in her desperation for freedom, to do what she wants. In addition, Greer never answers the question why all cultures have some form of marriage and never considers why we always want justice (which again, without God, is pretty hard to define). Given the destruction of family and social life proposed by Greer, Oliver James’s book Britain on the Couch(4) is fascinating. It shows that, on every available measure, we have become less happy and more depressed than our grandparents' generation 50 years ago. James gives a number of reasons for this: the culture of comparison (which makes us ‘feel like losers even if we are winners’); the breakdown of marriage and family relationships; and ‘gender rancour’ at work. As a remedy, James only suggests therapy and pills (commenting that ‘some readers may feel that any serious suggestion that anti-depressant pills be considered as a solution is preposterous’). These are certainly interesting starting points in conversation, especially as they do not in any way deal with the root causes that James identifies. Lastly, in How to be good(5), Nick Hornby (of |Fever Pitc|h fame) hilariously details the near break-up of the marriage of Katie and David Carr. Both in their own ways are trying to ‘be good’ and make up for their wrongs (by ‘reversal’: ‘you take something you’ve done wrong, you reverse it. Do the opposite’). It is intriguing to ask why in a random world, relationships and forgiveness play such dominant parts. Conclusion References © Evangelicals Now - June 2005 |
|
