Alpha Male
I answered the call of a friend last night and attended the first meeting of an Alpha group at his home.
The Alpha program, for those who don't know, is a 10-week introductory course to Christianity, designed for seekers and unbelievers, started by an Anglican minister named Nicky Gumbel. Meetings consist of a meal, a movie and a discussion. The movie is of a lecture/sermon by Gumbel, standing at a podium in that sweetly awkward British manner, with the requisite reaction shots of a group of improbably beautiful young British "seekers." The messages are very simple and designed to get the conversational ball rolling on "first-order" questions. The group that I attended had only one "seeker." He would probably not have used that term, he was pretty content thinking that "good people won't be sent to hell," and he was mostly there because his wife (a Christian, but subject to doubts) had enticed him. The others in attendance were the host and hostess, a couple from my church and me.
The truth is, the discussion period felt a little uncomfortable to me, with the cards so stacked, so I tried to identify with the poor guy who was still digesting his dinner. I found it unsettling to realize that I could still argue on both sides of the coin when it comes to "mere Christianity." Talking with unbelievers I can get pretty excited about defending the faith, but in a room of believers I find myself playing the devil's advocate.
For a former type-A agnostic like myself, arguing with the accepted beliefs of Christianity is sort of like smoking. You can give it up, recognize it's bad, but still recall the experience fondly. I may be a born-again Christian, but I'm still a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian.
Question 1:
Does this make me a bad evangelical?
Question 2:
Would this make me a bad Catholic?
The Alpha program, for those who don't know, is a 10-week introductory course to Christianity, designed for seekers and unbelievers, started by an Anglican minister named Nicky Gumbel. Meetings consist of a meal, a movie and a discussion. The movie is of a lecture/sermon by Gumbel, standing at a podium in that sweetly awkward British manner, with the requisite reaction shots of a group of improbably beautiful young British "seekers." The messages are very simple and designed to get the conversational ball rolling on "first-order" questions. The group that I attended had only one "seeker." He would probably not have used that term, he was pretty content thinking that "good people won't be sent to hell," and he was mostly there because his wife (a Christian, but subject to doubts) had enticed him. The others in attendance were the host and hostess, a couple from my church and me.
The truth is, the discussion period felt a little uncomfortable to me, with the cards so stacked, so I tried to identify with the poor guy who was still digesting his dinner. I found it unsettling to realize that I could still argue on both sides of the coin when it comes to "mere Christianity." Talking with unbelievers I can get pretty excited about defending the faith, but in a room of believers I find myself playing the devil's advocate.
For a former type-A agnostic like myself, arguing with the accepted beliefs of Christianity is sort of like smoking. You can give it up, recognize it's bad, but still recall the experience fondly. I may be a born-again Christian, but I'm still a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian.
Question 1:
Does this make me a bad evangelical?
Question 2:
Would this make me a bad Catholic?
posted by Rick Broussard at 4:18 PM
11 Comments:
'Just trying to keep the conversation lively'
William Hurt, The Big Chill
The dreaded preset evangelical encounter. Aarrrrgh! Are you kidding, how would that make you a bad anything? Better yet would have been to blow the place up and go have a beer. That might have generated a truly valuable interchange on ultimate matters.
If we are not knowledgable enough and do not have large enough hearts to find ways to bring people to see the beauty of Christ and the miserableness of life without him, then perhaps we should simply keep silent.
"If he exalt himself, I humble him; if he humble himself, I exalt him; and I always contradict him, till he understands that he is an incomprehensible monster."
Pascal, Thoughts No 420
Now that sounds far more fun, and lively!
Rick:
What makes a thing good or bad? How well it performs the thing it was made for. So you're made to love God, and maybe you do that by arguing and being contrary ... instead of trying to draw a picture of God by which to know Him you're a sculptor chiseling away at all the bits that don't look like Him, a process which necessarily brings into the people you arguing with.
So my asnwers are:
1. No
2. No
Binx:
There are definitely mornings I feel like an "incomprehensible monster." There's something of Grendel in that passage from Pascal!
Ernesto:
It is rare when I don't feel like an incomprehensible monster. ;)
Regards
For the record, I think there's a place for "the dreaded preset evangelical encounter" in evangelism. And Alpha is one of the better versions of the form. It's intellectually oriented and pretty transparent as far as the "technique." I've gone through Evangelism Explosion training and done some street ministry, and there's a bit of the sales pitch in each of them (a LOT in E.E.). But "Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every living creature," does seem like it could stand a bit more organization than simply enjoying a bit of philosophy over beer.
Of course it is easy to characterize someone's comment in only one aspect. You are the one who testified as to how uncomfortable the setting was!
I never said we shouldn't evangelize. I simply think any technique that is not born of the fire in one's own being is in the end, fairy empty.
It is impossible to imagine Paul or Peter organizing little bands of people and 'training' them in some 'technique' to save the lost. Jesus didn't do it. The Apostles didn't. There is no biblical evidence or basis whatsoever for doing it. They charged people to know and love the Lord, the rest will find a way to take care of itself.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough people 'witnessing' about Christ. The problem is there aren't enough who have David's heart to ask 'one thing' of the Lord, 'that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple.'
Are you simply contrarian to everything, even when one agrees with you? That would be self contradictory Rick.
By the way the Great Commission was spoken to the Apostles, not to all disciples, and passed on by their Authority to those they commissioned, it isn't a blanket command to any and all who read it.
Binx, I didn't mean to reject the pass that you and Ernesto both offered. Thanks. Enjoyed it. Loved the "Big Chill" reference morphing into Pascal and Beowulf. That being said, yes I am inclined to re-examine my own remarks when people agree with me. So sue me.
Perhaps you were projecting a bit in deciding how "uncomfortable" I felt at the event. It was a great meal, nice people, good information to chew on. I confessed only to feeling a "little discomfort" and that only due to the fact that the inherent awkwardness of such a planned encounter is magnified when there's an audience of one.
I think the nature of the D.P.E.E., as you so succinctly have described it, is not to be a device of evangelism per se. Personal evangelism can only take place, as you say, through the "fire of one's being." But simple exposure to the truth of God and the Word of God is powerful, no matter how it is presented. Most of my exposure to the Gospel took place in awkward settings like that, and many of the citizen ministers who presented the Bread of Life to me were folks I wouldn't have asked out to lunch. The D.P.E.E. is a tool (maybe ineffectual, maybe not) to spread salt and light throughout our compartmentalized world. At one time religion was a defining characteristic of a community. Now it's something private. No matter how you cut it, the church has changed in a number of ways since the first century and it's hard to imagine what Peter and Paul would think to do with the tools and challenges of our age.
I think your contention that the Great Commission was spoken to the Apostles and therefore is not an assignment to mere disciples will bear a little study and thought before I respond. But it probably comes down to one of those Catholic/evangelical distinctions that this site is designed to root out.
I'll get back to you on it.
Meanwhile, thanks for keeping the conversation lively.
This reminds me of the 'Theology on tap' program some Catholic dioceses sponsor. They get a priest, or theologian, or some sort of speaker and rent out a space in a pub/restaurant. They invite any and all who want to attend. Then they talk about God, ask questions, and such. The strategy it seems, is to get a group of folks together, have a beer and talk about God, in hopes it spurs some people further along the path.
I think it's good to reexamine one's positions, assumptions, standing, etc. If we're in the right place, our examination will show that. If not, then we're better off for knowing.
"...it probably comes down to one of those Catholic/evangelical distinctions that this site is designed to root out."
I would hope that in the end we are trying to converge on the one truth that is, rather than stop at discovering distinctions.
With that in mind I was hoping you would respond to my comments regarding the visible/invisible church in "A Purgatorial Debate" below.
To bring up another foundational discovery in my search for the Church. One must come to grips with the critical issue of Authority. What kind of Authority do you think Jesus passed on when he ascended? Did he institute any form of Leadership?
This is where Newman's argument for the Development of Christian Doctrine becomes immeasurably important. The infant Church was a seed. As Jesus taught it was likened to a mustard seed that would develop into the largest tree in the garden. Therefore we should expect that the Church would mature along lines that are organically consistent with the seed but will not resemble that seed in appearance and will take time to flesh out.
Regards
My answers to your questions, for what they're worth:
1. No, that doesn't make you a bad evangelical, though perhaps your less forgiving peers would accuse you of "backsliding."
2. Saint Jerome, the bible translator extraordinaire, was famously contrarian. And let's not forget that Thomas Aquinas summarized the arguments he disagreed with better than most of his opponents did.
John 13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
This time the holocaust will be black.
Austrian Sigmund Freud is known as the father of psychoanalysis yet people have (mental) health problems because of their disfavor, illustrating the preditory purpose of this discipline, this individual.
These people.
Of course Hitler was Austrian. Glock, maker of the semi-automatic gun favored by the most ruthless of black street gangs, the Bloods and the Crips, is Austrian.
RedBull Energy drink, Buwdeiser both Austrian.
The Holocaust was foreshadowing, yet another example of the Jews sacrificing to help the disfavored::::
1. 1492 exodus from Spain.
2. Spread throughout Europe as clue to heathen Christians worshipping a false god.
3. "Quasi-Holocaust claim" contradicting boss.
The Apocalypse (or an Apocalyptic event) will be initiated by an Austrian. When the national referendum to allow foreign-born individuals to run for president is introduced I recommend you DEFY and vote NO!! In the years prior to this vote the gods will send POWERFUL clues suggesting the IMPORTANCE OF DEFIANCE.
It will be the Koreans. There may not even be any invasion:::They gods will scapegoat them telepathically.
Black people like the ones who terrorized Korean businesses during the 1992 riots in California will be executed. I have personal reinforcing evidence.
This time the holocaust will be black.
Italy's boot is a clue showing the god's intent with the Romans.
Oshkosh. Oshkosh is a clue just as Lake Michigan and Green Bay are clues::::
Oshkosh is the ejaculate clue:::Life springs forth from this city.
Expect your traditional Second Coming of Christ to come from Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Consistant with the possibility of matrilinial lineage it may be the mother's family from the Lake Winnebago area fulfilling some "Manifest Destiny" bullshit theater.
1. Corporate sourcing violently punished::::
They suggest the whole "sourcing" era, where it is positioned that their brain-less clones obtained product from China and other Asian countries for the lowest possible price, will be punished violently if the gods elect to employ the "Chinese invasion" script.
One of the reasons it was so important to get out before 1980 or before the end of each 20-year war-revelry cycle (1960, 1980, 2000, 2020, etc).
2. Deception of Southern rednecks to blame for Republican control:::::
Republicans, party of preditory disfavored, keep guns available. Easy gun availablility is an "open door" for the gods, a tool used to prey on the disfavored.
Republicans, party of preditory disfavored, gave you the Clinton impeachment theater 1998.
Republican loyalty is why noone cares that rednecks are set up for the slaughter.
The Simpsons offered many clues to the disfavored, not the least of which the frequent references to "pack/mob mentality".
This isn’t about reals and clones. This is about the brains and the brain-less.
This is the key which unlocks the god’s puzzle.
Kosher is a favor bestowed upon the Jews. The South eats LOTS of pork and there is a oyster bar on every corner.
It's kinda like liquor stores in the ghetto. This is the kind of irony the gods laugh about:::::
gods got rid of the retarded woman who lived across the street, prior to the fall of 2006 so your handiwork wouldn't stare you in the face while there was so much attention.
gods took similar evansive manuvers w/ bi-racial.
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because he lied.
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because he was orally copulated.
Bill Clinton was impeached because it was 1998.
HOW TO PRAY:::1. I'm sorry for what I've done wrong. 2. I don't want to sccumb to temptation and make any more mistakes. 3. I want to fix my problems. 4. Please don't hurt me.
We will ALL be held to the responsibilities entrusted to us, no matter what temptations contradict this.
If you don't do the right thing you're going to do the wrong thing, and the right thing to do is to ACTIVELY fix your problems and pursue the favor of the gods.
If you're not working hard to fix your problems, if you don't creatively work to get the hell off Earth then you will be consumed by it, by the reverse positioning-institutions they instilled as temptations::::popular culture, democracy, materialism.
Post a Comment
<< Home