I recently lead a roundtable discussion with youth workers on the issue of ‘reaching non-churched teens’. The discussion was lively. I was struck by a few thoughts from the various perspectives that were represented.
Ideas about how pluralism changes our perspective on ‘reaching’:::
We have been conditioned to see Christianity as something to be defended. We are in defence mode. So our approach with non-followers of Jesus is to convince them of the truth of the gospel while defending it from the places where its exclusive claims come in conflict with other religious perspectives. Apologetics while important as a technique to define and refine doctrine and theology is limited in its ability to provide the vehicle for people to ‘get to Christ’. Instead I would suggest that our defensive attitude has been harmful in exasperating the smorgasbord approach to religion prevalent in North America. This classic approach is played out on front door steps between Christians and Mormons. But when we teach our children that Christianity needs primarily to be defended in the face of other religious perspectives we handcuff our children. Their faith perspective is only maintained as long as they have the resources to know and defend truth. When those run out they are liable not only to stop trying to convince others but to lose their own faith position.
We must realize that truth does not so much need to be defended as to be proved. Through our lives. That is to say that if we believe following Jesus to be the best way to live our lives better prove it. Take marriage for instance: what would societies response be to the church if when they looked at the church they saw that not only were we able to get married and stay married but that we experienced the best marriages on the planet?
That would not only be appealing but would provide a convincing argument about how and why marriage should be the way it is.
Ideas about how moralism affects ‘reaching’…
I feel like so much of our focus in trying to ‘convert’ people is to change their morals. It seems like the primary thing for us. If our primary objective is to change people’s behaviour aren’t we missing the point of the miraculous power of the gospel and reducing it to little more than a glorified self help project or group therapy experience. Time after time we notice how Jesus encounters with people rarely demanded action on their part but that when they encountered his redemptive work in their lives they were compelled to change their behaviour. Behaviour modification seems to be a natural consequence for most people who encountered Jesus. Perhaps when we focus on changing other people’s behaviour we focus on the wrong thing. Plus behaviour modification is often so self serving. We want people to change to be more like us so that we are validated in our own convictions and lifestyle. Perhaps considering our duty or responsibility to serve the people around us should be our primary focus. As mini-Christs we should ask the question: how can I serve this person so that they experience the unmerited redemption of Christ in their lives.
4 comments:
Miller says, "we need to spend less time trying to set up a temporary moral civilization and more time showing people Jesus."
I agree. Sometimes we focus more on trying to win people to a lifestyle more than to a relationship
The subtext of trying to convert someone morally is that we are saying that we have become such good people by our own power, isn't it? Basically, we're saying, I've change and so can you. We're forgetting that it is a miracle everytime we don't sin!
yeah it is a miracle.
Of course we don't have to deny the importance of a moral code. It's just that define that moral code becomes an issue of humility (miracle) and redemption (Christ's power) rather than behaviour modification.
That was a good Saturday thanx for putting it on...
Post a Comment