Monday, November 03, 2008
Respecting Those Who Don't Believe
This post is the first of a few in which I want to consider some nuances of gospel mission in the western world of the 21st century. I am intrigued by the above video clip for a number of reasons, but I want to focus on one in particular. Dr. Keller begins by saying that a missional church (or what he is defining as a missional church) has respect for people who don't believe, understands what its like not to believe and this respect and understanding permeates all that they do.
Something in me really resonates with this viewpoint. While I do not believe we should be so inclusive that we no longer make distinctions between those who believe and those who do not, I do think that many times we unnecessarily cut people off from hearing the gospel simply by being insensitive to them or (more often) even merely the world view they represent. For instance, should I say (or insinuate) that someone is stupid for not believing that there is a God who created this amazing and complex universe, or should I respect their view even whilst I am (humbly) confronting it with the the alternative Christian view of which I am convinced? I believe the latter is certainly what Jesus and the apostles modeled for us.
Insensitive jokes, caricatures, and disrespect of those who do not believe is scandalously anti the gospel of grace. Respecting someone is not necessarily agreeing with their viewpoint nor does it have to involve diluting or concealing the gospel message. It is simply a matter of loving all people.
This post is a bit of thinking (or rather typing) out loud. Anyone have any thoughts to crack open the subject?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I thoroughly agree with these ideas. I think we still have a long way to go on this but I get the feeling that we might be moving in the right directions. Interestingly I have just posted on a related topic, discussing how we relate with others of a different faith, that I called, for want of better word, Interfaith Dialogue. I think humility is the key. But it isn't easy to get the balance right between our own conviction and not coming over as arrogant. Perhaps we need to hold our ideas lightly - but not too lightly that we drop them? What do you think?
I agree with you that humility is the key. And no, balance does not seem easy. I am not sure that I would say that we should hold our ideas lightly. This actually reminds me of a conversation I had with someone on the idea of tolerance. It is impossible to tolerate someone if you already agree with them...there is by definition nothing to tolerate. It is when we do not agree...perhaps even strongly disagree...and are still able to respect one another that tolerance happens. This is the sort of thing I think we need to pursue.
I would want Christians to hold their core beliefs very strongly, but not slip into ways of thinking and relating that disrespect people who disagree. In other words, I do not think that holding certain beliefs firmly is incongruent with humbly respecting someone else who disagrees.
I fully agree that there are core convictions such as God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection that we should hold firmly, I hope came over in the original post about interfaith dialogue. Perhaps what I’m meaning is that we should hold lightly are not just those ways of expressing ourselves but also those interpretations and applications of our convictions that may not be helpful in our conversations. If we are to become like the Christians that Keller is talking about perhaps we need to be prepared for some of these to be stripped away while trusting God that the core is not affected.
This is definitely the approach to take, and it actually kind of comes naturally, I have found. Take another of Keller's examples: hypocrisy in the church. Even Christians identify with this and are frustrated by it, let alone non-Christians.
I use my non-Christian cousin as an example. He has all kinds of doubts, questions, skepticism, criticism, and more of the church. And I empathetically agree with him in each case.
Maybe it comes down to your mentality in the situation. If a person has a mentality that they must defend the faith from the attacking enemy, then it will turn out badly. But if a person takes the mentality that they are trying to win the person to Christ, then it the encounter will be more winsome in nature.
I've heard it described as a "humble boldness," which puts it succintly.
The best part is, in our pluralistic, postmodern culture, we can be much, much more bold than in the past. Where in the past, a person was made to feel timid about their "faith" in the face of a scientific secular world, we now live in a pluralistic and hyper-spiritually-sensitive place. The New Age movement shows people trying to fill the void in their lives with some kind of spirituality.
Christians should be more bold than ever, albeitly humbly, that they have a relevant message to bring: that God loves the world so much, that he came among his people and carried the weight of their sin, in order that whoever commits their life to him, they can have everlasting life.
Hey Daniel, thanks for the post. Here is a question to consider:
What is the next step to move onto from respecting those who do not believe?
Or maybe that's your next post?
Exactly, Scott. That's the danger. Being so "relevant" that we are no longer relevant.
However, I know Keller well enough that he would never take it in this direction. But on the ground-level, you're absolutely right. What's the next step?
Eventually, the gospel is just downright scandalous. And it cannot be neglected to share, just because it is foolishness to people.
My question, 'What's the next step?' has more to do with considering the action of mission rather than the conversation of relevancy. I'm challenged to consider what it means to actually take the next step outside of respecting. Maybe the next step is dialogue before action? But to dialogue, we have to 'get out their' and converse. This is what we must consider - what's next?
I knew what you meant =D. I was simply applying hermeneutic principles from Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament; taking passages out of context, and applying them in new ways ;-D.
At least, according to one branch of scholars... 0=)
Post a Comment