(Edited because this was written rather hastily and I felt like changing a few slight things)
Before I begin, let me say that I completely agreed with almost everything that Mr. Cahill said in Chapel today and that I will probably be attending the evening chapel at seven o'clock. I am not complaining about his message. With that clarified...
I did not like Mr. Cahill's presentation of his material. Despite his probable good intentions, he did manage to come off as a bit of a braggart to me. I'm sure that wasn't what he was trying to do. The snapping of his fingers got extremely annoying incredibly fast. I understand he was making a point. That doesn't change the fact that it was loud and high-pitched. How a finger-snap can sound high-pitched is outside of my knowledge, but his did to me. I was also rather annoyed by his constant need for repeating a word. "Yes!" "Disobediant!" "Disobediant!" "Yes!"
Those things, however, I can just ignore as being annoying quirks of a speaker. I can not do that with this next point because I have heard several speakers do this exact same thing.
For about two years before I became a Christian I considered myself an atheist. Not many people know this about me because I don't really talk about it. I was absolutely convinced that every single Christian was a moron, and I was fairly certain that the majority of them were hypocrites. I believed there was an almost ridiculous amount of evidence to show that life began without the help of any all-powerful being. All of this caused me to despise anyone who tried to "guilt-trip" others into becoming a Christian.
I would not talk with anyone about Christianity or Christ unless I was ridiculing it. I could not stand people who would walk around practically saying "Praise God" to anything. Nothing could have convinced me to actually listen to someone who was serious about God. This continued up until I did convert to Christianity.
My conversion to Christianity was not the result of some random Christian walking up to me off the street and asking something along the lines of "Do you know Jesus?" I would not have taken that person seriously. My conversion was the result of actions that I took. I went to a church camp for the sole purpose of being around my friends for a couple weeks of the summer. While here I met actual intelligent Christians who earned Christianity a lot of respect in my eyes. They presented evidence against evolution. The end result of going to this camp was my acceptance of Christ.
The point of this is that witnessing to me directly did not work during my short time as an atheist. This is a fact that many people neglect to mention. Mr. Cahill made it sound as if anyone can just walk up and ask anyone "Where are you spending eternity?" and almost immediately convert the person. If this were an ideal world it might be like that. The truth of the situation is that many people react extremely negatively to anything dealing with any religion. I know that I did. I expected to go to that camp and mock it the entire time.
My conversion came about because people cared about me as a person before bringing religion into our conversations. They got to know me. They took my opinions seriously. They listened to me. It was very obvious that they cared about me. This happened after several conversations. I can't believe that someone honestly cares about me after a ten minute to one hour conversation.
I find it irritating that so many speakers make it sound as if a Christian to walk up to an atheist, talk with him or her for a couple of minutes, and walk away with a brother or sister in Christ. While it can and does happen sometimes, it will not happen all that often. Most people don't like mentioning that, though.
Posted by Randy at March 3, 2004 02:48 PM | TrackBackWhile I agree with you on the point that you cannot "walk up to an atheist,talk with him or her for a couple of minutes, and walk away with a brother or sister in Christ." There is a danger in the opposite extrema as well. This is the belief that just by being a christian and living a "good life" will make people "see the light." Both of these philosophies are a product of the "bumper sticker" Christian culture. It is important for each of us to be honest to our beliefs and serve God in the way he has designed us to serve. Preachers should preach, missionaries should go on missions, etc... The trick is knowing what you are good at.
Posted by: Codepainter at March 3, 2004 06:38 PMI'm with you. I agreed with almost everything. I also had the experience of sitting through a pizza lunch with him as a chaplain too and found a few more points to disagree with.
He talked about breakig the bubble and such during chapel and engaging the culture, but yet during the lunch he launched on a long discussion about rock music and such and how it isn't as effective as the spoken word and not as good musically as classical stuff and also about how music affects a person and such. In fact, some worship songs are dangerous because of the dangers of irrerevent movement and dangers of going into a trance as in a cult. Christian rock bands aren't great unless they use the word Jesus a lot of times. For example, according to Mr. Cahill, Phenomenon doesn't ever use the word Jesus...which is wrong because I have the c.d. and it does. Oh yes, and role playing is bad too because we're being someone we aren't. I had the distinct impression that he and the couple from Peculiar People would very much disagree.
So yeah, I sat there and kept my mouth tightly shut. He's definitely being used by God but I personally think he has a narrow view of engaging the culture.
Posted by: banana at March 3, 2004 06:44 PMPersonally, I think both are valid points. It depends on the person. You responded to people reaching out and careing for you as a person, not trying to coldly convince to in pure logic to become a Christian.
However, the examples he used were valid examples too. Other people may be logically oriented, so sitting down and debating with them would be a much more effective way of winning them for the cause of Christ then winning them through emotional means.
Ultimately though, what it boils down to, is that there is no single cookie-cutter formula for winning people the the cause of Christ. You have to know them, find out who they are, trust in the Holy Spirit, and He'll take it from there.
Posted by: Amare Hubris at March 4, 2004 12:27 AM"Other people may be logically oriented, so sitting down and debating with them would be a much more effective way of winning them for the cause of Christ then winning them through emotional means." -- Amare Hubris
Pardon me, but I don't think Randy is drawing a line between emotion and logic here. For instance, he says:
"While here I met actual intelligent Christians who earned Christianity a lot of respect in my eyes. They presented evidence against evolution."
I see him arguing here against glibness, not against logic. In fact, this post argues that *depth* is more important than we like to think; quickie evangelism is overrated. That is anything but an argument for emotionalism.
Posted by: Wilson at March 4, 2004 01:58 AMAnna, I agree with you. I find it amazing that he claims that shy people make the "best" witnesses but continues his "in-their-face" campaign.
Wilson, thank you. I could not have said it better.
Amare, I can't believe you wrote "cookie-cutter."
Posted by: Randy at March 4, 2004 10:25 AMWilson - yes, you're right. However, I don't really think that changes my point.
Randy - yes, I said cookie-cutter. There, I said it again.
Posted by: Amare Hubris at March 4, 2004 06:52 PM