Is Veritas deceptive? ...part two...
"We're hosting forums on truth," we told them as we conducted surveys on Skiles walkway. "What is truth?" the banner on our table posited. If we had time to speak with people, we shared that we are Christians who believe that the Biblical worldview can compete in the marketplace of ideas, and we are trying to bring open forums on truth and God to campus. One survey-taker had some piercing commentary to make, however.
Ok. Now I'll make a guess. You are involved in some sort of religion and you want to get other people involved in it. If that's the case, it's a bit deceptive to say you're "conducting a survey to bring in a speaker for a forum" or whatever you said. If you want to talk to me about your religion, go ahead & tell me what it is. Introduce a little sincerity.
I've always been in the intellectual camp of Christianity, that group of amateur theologians who love to read Augustine, Calvin, and Piper and throw around little words like supralapsarianism, dispensationalism, hypostatic union, and eschatology. We see beauty in the technicalities of a well-thought-out Biblical worldview. We love apologetics and had to test and prove the claims of Jesus Christ before we would follow Him. Our method of worship and grand goal in life is to learn and live good theology. We envy dead people because they have better theology than we do. (Seriously.)
This scholarly Christianity has a great heritage, for the intellectual community used to be dominated by and thrive under great Christian thinkers. Only recently has the scientific community been taken over by those who deny a Biblical faith. (Required-in-my-opinion reading: Love Your God with All Your Mind by J. P. Moreland.) But now we exist in a hostile environment. One word about God and we are either ridiculed or dismissed from anything "intellectual" or "scientific." This environment often fosters a fear of being frank about the fact that we are Christians and we actually believe all that Bible and God stuff.
I am guilty as charged—I have often failed to "introduce a little sincerity," including when I've represented Veritas to others. But under the teaching of John Piper at Passion 2007, I was encouraged to take that risk—come what may. We must be ready and willing to risk our intellectual reputation, our ego under ridicule, whatever it takes, by being honest and frank about the fact that we are followers of Christ and Veritas is a Christian movement. Anything less and we are not risking our own pride, we are risking God's reputation within our lost community. His fame is at stake, and we can't give Him a bad name by our deception. He can't take risks: it's all certain to Him. So ours is just to be faithful to the God we say we believe and commit to the utmost honesty (see part one).
3 comments:
I wouldn't let the objector you quoted put you on the defensive so readily. What he basically is trying to do is put you on the horns of a (false) dilemma:
A) Beat me over the head with the Bible, or
B) Leave me alone.
Both options are clearly ineffective, but is there a third option?
Clearly there is, and it's the road you're taking: you're saying you'd like to address people in a compelling, engaging manner. Furthermore, you're acknowledging that these are hard issues to discuss because of varying opinions that people may hold -- often passionately.
So the approach you're advancing is basically this: let's address the foundational issues (i.e., truth) in an open, honest, respectful (dare I add "tolerant?") forum -- and everybody who wants to can bring his or her own worldview to bear on the issues we discuss. May the best ideas win.
I daresay that's more honest and respectful than the false dilemma you were presented with.
Good points, Hugh.
My first answer to your comments is that this particular post was more for the purpose of pointing out our failures to be honest than for answering the skeptic (which I hope was accomplished by the succeeding post). That said, you highlight several more good ways in which to deal with these accusations.
I often fail at assigning the burden of proof correctly and immediately go on the defensive. I agree with your criticism of his statement: "get[ting] other people involved in" following Christ is not the purpose of Veritas. That simply happens as a by-product of truth being presented and examined in an unbiased atmosphere. Veritas as a vehicle for proselytization is a straw man.
How do we strike that balance? Is there a different balance that we must achieve in our personal conversations than in a public forum like Veritas?
Is the balance any different personally vs. in a group setting like Veritas?
In one sense, no, there is a certain consistency that has to be there. Truth must be paramount for you personally just as it is in the corporate forum.
In another sense, speaking pragmatically, a corporate forum is going to lend itself to qualitatively different expressions of the values you consistently hold.
For example, let's consider your reasons as to why truth is paramount. At a personal level you can be more transparent than you can in a large group setting.
Post a Comment