I was talking to a Christian friend about some of my issues with apologetics and he directed me to Sam Chan talking about his book How to Talk About Jesus (Without Being THAT Guy).
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Me: Why, yes, of course I will provide commentary on this topic.
Let me start with some ground rules.
Dr Chan and I have certain irreconcilable philosophical differences. And I have no interest in trying to get him to change his beliefs (which may mean that any conversation is already asymmetric). What I want to do is give him my feedback on some of his advice. He is under no obligation to take it.
I am an atheist but I was raised in in an Evangelical Baptist community and most of my biological family are still part of that community. So I do not speak from a position of ignorance.
Ultimately I recognize that believers and non-believers need to find ways to live together. Therefore I intend to model* the characteristics of positive public discourse in my writing here. There will no DESTROYING. This is not about winning.
I recognize that while Dr Chan & I may have our differences, he is acting with good intentions.
So lets start with some things I agree with:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing with people the spiritual or religious elements of your life in every day conversation. That’s all fine and anyone who makes you feel bad for doing it is being a d-head.
Caring about the people around you, listening to them, and being there for them is good. We all need to do more of that. So anyone who encourages that is to be applauded.
Now the things I don’t necessarily mind:
I regularly have religious friends and family say they are going to pray for me. Mostly I hear that as “I am concerned for your welfare and wish to express that concern in a way that is meaningful to me”. And I accept that because I accept them. Occasionally I have heard it as “I disapprove of you / your decisions and wish to express that in a passive-aggressive manner”. That I am much less down with.
And then the things that felt a bit icky:
Caring about people because you hope to convert them feels very instrumental. Care about people because you care about people. Recognize that nearly everyone you express care for will not convert to your faith. If you are cool with that then carry on caring. If not, maybe reconsider your motives.
If you are telling people that you are praying for them when they have a bad back then also offer to do some practical things that might help them. Do they need help with the shopping? There’s a reason “thoughts and prayers” has become a dark punchline.
Saying “it’s a miracle” when someone’s bad back gets better is kinda infuriating. If someone said that to me I would nod and move on and do my best not to punch them. The reason people’s backs get better is not because of supernatural intervention. Even worse, you are shifting the focus of the conversation from their situation to your beliefs. When someone announces their cancer has gone into remission, you wouldn’t say “That’s because I rubbed my lucky rabbit’s foot!” Stop making it about you.
Esp. when you are an actual medical doctor with years of training.(Remember the rules of civil discourse, Matt)
He was doing so well. Then it all went a bit Pete Tong. Overall I would strongly recommend that would-be evangelists read a book that I have mentioned here recently - Obliquity by John Kay.
“Strange as it may seem, overcoming geographic obstacles, winning decisive battles or meeting global business targets are the type of goals often best achieved when pursued indirectly.”
The Lord, it is said, moves in mysterious ways*. Evangelists might choose ways that, if not mysterious, are at least less direct and more humane. More caring and listening. Less harvesting souls for Jesus.
It’s not all about you.
*I’m a model, you know what I mean, and I shake my little tush on the catwalk.
A copy of Obliquity arrived today! Thanks to your previous recommendation and the Baader Meinhof effect of seeing it mentioned in several other places.
I think one key on this, which I've come to realize, is that religion is a psychology for which some apply theological answers whereas others fill with atheistic ones. I find talking about most topics ends up being 'religious' in nature.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology