To Better Share Your Faith, Maybe You Should Just Shut Up

I've recently been discussing how Christians can us reason and logical argument to help their witnessing efforts. (You can read the previous articles, here, here, and here.) I believe in studying hard and understanding the issues. I believe in learning and providing good answers when others pose objections to Christian positions. I definitely believe in engaging others and always being ready to provide an answer to anyone who asks about the hope that is within you.

However, I've also seen conversations where spewing all those answers and all that knowledge at another person had the opposite effect: it drove people away from the faith. It isn't because the answers weren't sound; it's simply because the Christian wasn't really listening to the other person. Sometimes it's better to ask a question and then shut up for a while and listen to what the other person has to say.

Ask for Their 'Testimony'

Listening and seeking to understand the other person's feelings is a hard skill to learn. Many people have told me that they have been frustrated when talking about religious ideas because they felt that their questions were being ignored or not taken seriously. Even Christians who pride themselves on their ability to defend the faith can fall into this trap.  In our conversations, we can get so caught up in planning our next response that we aren't even hearing what the other person is saying right now!

If we are going to be effective in sharing your faith, we as Christians need to slow down and really listen to what the other person is telling us. We need to hear not only their objection to a specific point, but to how they understand Christianity and belief as a whole. A good way to do this is to simply ask them for their testimony.

Let me give an example. I once invited a lady from the Jehovah's Witnesses who was going door to door inside to talk a bit. I asked her about her belief in who Jesus was and what the Watchtower said about him. She gave all the standard answers. We began discussing how about how Jesus could not be a created being and it looked like it was going to be a standard “You say , I say” type conversation.

However, I then asked, "Can you tell me what attracted you to the Jehovah's Witnesses?" She replied that she originally wasn't that religious. She had a brother who was mentally impaired. She loved her brother dearly, even though he used to do certain things—things which she deemed unspeakable and unforgivable. Because of his condition, her brother died at a relatively young age. She knew there was no way he was going to heaven, given his actions, but she couldn't bear the thought of him being in hell. So, she said she started on a religious journey and "searched out different faiths until I found the Jehovah's Witnesses."

Listening Changes Conversations

Now, we had been talking about the nature of Christ, but do you think arguing Hebrews 1:6 or Granville Sharp's rule will be effective in such a situation? I immediately switched to the orthodox ideas of grace, forgiveness, and God's mercy as well as His judgment.

I think that listening is a key element that is many times missing from our apologetic today. You don't see many apologetics books written about how to listen well.  But asking some good questions like “How did you come to your beliefs/non-belief?” or “What is the most attractive thing for you about holding that position?” can give you great insight into the person with whom you're conversing and help you have a much more fruitful exchange. It also shows that you actually care about that person and what he or she thinks; you aren't just looking to put another notch on your Bible.

We need to remember that each encounter we have is with a person who is an individual with different motivations, background and feelings than our own. We should treat them as such and try to understand each individual before jumping too quickly into an answer. By listening, we will become more effective in defending our faith.

Can You Get a Something from a Nothing?

In my debate against Richard Carrier, I argued that the beginning of the universe pointed toward the existence of God. I had said, "The most fundamental law of science is 'Out of nothing, nothing comes.' We simply do not see things popping into existence for no reason. Every parent understands this axiom when they find crayon marks on the wall or mud scraped across the floor. A child's response of 'no one did it, it just appeared' would be rightly rejected as silly."

This seems pretty common-sensical to me. One cannot get a something from a nothing. In fact, the word "nothing" can be broken apart to show that it means "no-thing." But Carrier replied to my point with this statement:

Oh yes, "out of nothing, nothing comes" is another one. If there is absolutely nothing, then there are no rules governing what will happen. So the idea that "only nothing can come from nothing" is a rule. That's something; that's not nothing. If you really have absolutely nothing then anything can happen. Nothing governs what's going to happen. If we start with nothing, we have no idea what could occur. As physicists will tell you, like Victor J. Stenger in The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, nothing is inherently unstable. So if we did start the universe with nothing, we could actually expect something to come out of it because the probability of nothing remaining nothing is rather low and because there is nothing governing what will happen.

There are a lot of problems here. First, let's look at what we mean when we use the word "nothing." When I say the universe began to exist, I mean that all matter, energy, space, and time came into being where they had previously not existed at all. In fact, when philosophers talk about the concept of nothing, it is generally understood to mean a state that is devoid of all properties. If there is nothing, then there are no physical things that can act and there are no laws of nature by which the non-existent entities would be able to act.

But Carrier seems confused on this. He first states, "The idea that 'only nothing can come from nothing' is a rule. That's something; that's not nothing." Well, that's not really accurate. The idea isn't a rule, but a description. It is another way of saying there are no laws and nothing upon which actions could even take place. But then, he goes on to say, "If there is absolutely nothing, then there are no rules governing what will happen… If you have absolutely nothing, then anything can happen!" Well, using Richard's own criteria, that would be a rule. That means you haven't started with nothing!

The idea that nothing is inherently unstable is a real science-stopper. Imagine people saying, "Well, I we had nothing and now we have this new chemical because anything can happen!" or "We don't know how that came into existence. It must've simply popped into existence because nothing can produce anything!" This is not a reasonable answer. It sounds more like magic than anything else.

So, I find this response problematic on several levels. First, Carrier argues that nothing is a great way to get something. I think that is a terrible answer and he needs to explain why we should accept it for the beginning of the universe then turn around and reject it for any other scientific question. Secondly, if "out of nothing, nothing comes" is considered something, then 'If you have absolutely nothing, then anything can happen" should also be considered something. As such, Carrier hasn't started with nothing and he needs to explain how his "rule" came into existence.

Who Should Be Able to Speak in the Abortion Debate?

During her filibuster to try and stop the Texas abortion bill that was just signed into law, Texas state Senator Wendy Davis said, "This legislating is being done and voted on—look around the room—primarily by men." In making that statement, Davis invoked an argument that has been used many times in the abortion debate: that since men cannot get pregnant they lack the real knowledge of what abortion means for women. A blogger at the Abortion Gang web site makes the same claim even more clearly when she writes:

"I want to silence all the male voices in the abortion discussion… In fact, the majority of persons in government who are anti-choice, are men. And none of them can get pregnant. The people who are making decisions that affect the lives of women, CAN'T EVEN GET PREGNANT! And so, I want to silence the voices of all men." (Emphasis in the original.)

The interesting thing, though, was that the Davis clip was featured on Rachel Maddow's news talk show on MSNBC. If you don't know, Maddow is an open lesbian who says she's in a committed relationship with her partner, Susan Mikula. So, other than spending a lot of money on insemination treatments, Maddow has the exact same chance of getting pregnant as any man in the Texas state government: none at all. Yet, Maddow felt she was quite in the right to discuss the issue and lead with this argument by Davis.

If pro-abortion supporters like Davis and the Abortion Gang are going to argue that the opinion of someone who cannot get pregnant should count less than those who can, then thy should be consistent and ban lesbians from the debate. In fact, they should have no infertile women or post-menopausal women speak to the issue, either.

It is clear that a standard such as the ability to get pregnant falls woefully short of a good argument in whether such a bill as was before the Texas representatives should be passed. Davis knows this and she was hoping to trade on people's emotions rather than making real arguments. Maddow seems to have bought it, even though her actions in engaging with the debate directly contradict the point that Davis implies. Such contradictions are worthy to be ignored.

In Online Dialogues, Asking Questions Is Crucial!

Yesterday, I tweeted a link to a story about two British banks pulling their support from the pro-homosexual group Stonewall's annual awards dinner because one of the "awards" they are presenting is the bigot award, in which they deride people that oppose the homosexual political agenda. My original tweet was:

British pro-homosexual group creates "bigot" award, despite objections from sponsors. So who's being bigoted now? http://bit.ly/ScyR6Y

One response I received was from Adam Preston, who on his Twitter page describes himself as "atheist. bibliophile. interested in military history, secularism, evolutionary psychology, LGBT rights. member of Labour Party & National Secular Society."  Below is our entire exchange.  I think this is helpful in showing why asking questions can play a key role in discussions with others.

@adam_preston: Calling a bigot a bigot is not bigoted.

@comereason: What're the essential attributes of a bigot? People throw these terms around too much without clearly knowing what they mean.

@adam_preston: I'd say wanting to deny equal rights to LGBT people because of your religion constitutes bigotry

@comereason: That's not what I asked. What are the necessary conditions to be labeled a bigot in any sense? Don't deflect the issue.

@adam_preston: Inflexibile intolerance and prejudice towards a group of people. I think that applies to most vocal anti-equalmarriage people

@comereason: By using prejudice you beg the question. Regardless, I am intolerant of serial killers. Is that bigotry?

@adam_preston: Was expecting that response. Although usually it's paedophiles, not serial killers. Intolerance of serial killers is RATIONAL

@comereason: So if the intolerance against a person is rational, it is not bigotry. Is that your view?

@adam_preston: In the sense that intolerance of child abusers & serial killers is not bigotry, while racism and sexism are, yes.

@comereason: Can you tell me why racism or sexism is irrational while the others aren't? What makes one belief rational and another isn't?

@adam_preston: Child abuse and murder are clearly harmful to individuals and society. How is equality harmful and how are gays dangerous?

@comereason: Is physical harm the only basis for rational intolerance? Can I be intolerant of cheaters or drunks if they harm no one else?

@adam_preston: Intolerance of them would be wrong, yes. Believing it's wrong to CHEAT is one thing. Intolerance of all who have is different

@comereason: I completely agree!! Being intolerant of the actions of cheating is different than being bigoted against the cheaters.

After my last statement Adam didn't respond again.  I think he could see the implication of his position that one can be against a behavior and not be considered a bigot, even if that behavior doesn't cause direct harm to another. This is exactly the position that Christians have taken for a while now.
Do I think the above exchange has changed Adam's mind and he will stop labeling those who are for traditional marriage bigots?  No, I don't.  But it may help clarify the issue in the minds of others reading the exchange and it does allow me to hold Adam to his own standard if he confronts me again.

Top Ten Neglected Books for Apologists - #2 Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible

"If the Bible is God's word, then why are there so many contradictions in it?" This question, or one of its variations, has been heard many times by those seeking to share their faith. Sometimes a questioner will pose a specific example, such as "how many angels were at the empty tomb?" or "Did God or Satan cause King David to sin?" Other times, they will have gathered a long list of objections (usually one that has made the rounds across the Internet) and say "See, look at all these!" How can just one person answer the myriad of supposed contradictions floating around today?

The fact of the matter is not only can one man answer these, but one man prepared the definitive response—and he did it back in 1874! John W. Haley made it his goal to address every known discrepancy or alleged biblical contradiction he could find after seeing a pamphlet circulating in a local parish listing several supposed self-contradictions. Haley didn't simply dismiss this pamphlet as the work of disgruntled skeptics, but he took the objections seriously, writing "I have been impressed with the fact that the so-called 'discrepancies' of the Bible have failed to receive due consideration by evangelical authors. The literature of the subject is comparatively meager and antiquated."[1] So Haley set out to survey much of the scholarly theological writings and treatments of the various texts. He then catalogued them, put them into short, very accessible language, and published them in what I consider a masterpiece: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.

Haley's efforts are still invaluable today. He breaks down discrepancies into one of three major categories: doctrinal discrepancies, ethical discrepancies, and historical discrepancies; the listings for each is exhaustive. He also created an index to find discrepancies by specific Bible verse. He handles the responses skillfully, with an easy-to-understand manner. He covers almost every objection that seems to surface in Facebook comments or YouTube pundits who want to topple the Bible's authority.  And he did it 150 years before these "problems" ever crossed the minds of our current slate of Internet atheists.

However, Haley saw the importance of not merely answering the charge of contradiction, but he sought to to explore why such discrepancies exist in the first place. The first three chapters of the book deal with why God would even allow such discrepancies in His word and why they can actually be advantageous to the serious Bible student. His comments in the introductions show his mind and heart for apologetics:

"Some persons may, perchance, question the wisdom of publishing a work in which the difficulties of scripture are brought together and set forth so plainly. They may think it better to suppress, as far as may be, the knowledge of these things. The author does not sympathize with any such timid policy. He counts it the duty of the Christian scholar to look difficulties and objections squarely in the face. Nothing is to be gained by overlooking, evading, or shrinking from them. Truth has no cause to fear scrutiny, however rigid and searching. Besides, the enemies of the Bible will not be silent, even if its friends should hold their peace. It should be remembered that the following "discrepancies" are not now published for the first time. They are gathered from books and pamphlets which are already extensively circulated. The poison demands an antidote. The remedy should be carried wherever the disease has made its blighting way."[2]

In reading first sentence above, I find many churches and youth group leaders hold a similar opinion in wanting to "shield" their sheep from the existence of the wolves.  As Haley noted, it is far better to know of the wolves and how to defend yourself against them, than to pretend they don't exist.

Given the publishing date, the contents for Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible are available for free online. However, I recommend purchasing the book and keeping it handy as a reference. This is one of the really superb hidden treasures that Christians have forgotten, and I hope he will be rediscovered soon.

References

1. Haley, John W.. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible Grand Rapids: Baker Book House 1986. Preface.
2. Ibid.

Six Tips to Help You Share Your Faith

There are many different articles out on the web dealing with Christian apologetics and how to defend your faith with others. Most deal with the technical nature of a specific claim or offer analogies for you to use when explaining your opinion.

However, there is another aspect of apologetics that is often ignored - how to talk appropriately to people. 1 Peter 3:15 (the "apologetics verse") says that we "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence "(emphasis added).  People seem to forget that the "gentleness and reverence part are included in the verse.  Knowing how to approach people is just as important as having all your facts together.  Remember, people have intrinsic value, and approaching them that way is part of our biblical mandate.

My friend Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason offers these six tips on engaging others in respectful, apologetically-driven conversations, tips we should always keep in mind when sharing our faith with others.

Apologetic Tip #1: Start with questions, not statements.

Apologetic Tip #2: Take the time necessary to get to know the other person's views. That might even be your first few conversations.

Apologetic Tip #3: Remember that people are image bearers to be valued, not merely apologetic targets to be conquered.

Apologetic Tip #4: Laugh. Joke around a little. Add a little sarcasm. This can take some of the tension out of a serious conversation.

Apologetic Tip #5: Talk over a meal. Table fellowship can communicate love, care, friendship--important things to undergird your apologetic.

Apologetic Tip #6: Don't sacrifice truth in the name of love. Don't sacrifice love in the name of truth. Need both 4 a powerful apologetic.

For more of Brett's writings and videos, check out www.strplace.com.