An atheist and a Christian, we met as strangers at a Subway sandwich
shop. And we left as friends.
Eric and I talked almost entirely about religion, and touched
on a lot of theological issues that can divide the most devout believers. We asked some good questions of each other,
and of life in general. We debated some,
but didn’t convince each other of our respective positions or really try to. Yet we walked away from the conversation with
glad hearts for the experience and a mutual respect for one another.
In this era of polarization, how can two people from
opposite ends of the spectrum have a civil conversation about a topic as
controversial as religion?
In our case, I think there was a certain level of maturity
on both sides. I am just as passionate
about sharing the Gospel as ever, which is why I started the conversation, and
I am just as hopeful that others come to know Jesus and the joy of
salvation. But I have learned to swallow
my pride in thinking that I can somehow convince others by my own efforts.
After hundreds of Gospel conversations I am convinced to the
core of my being that salvation is entirely a miracle of God, and I can truly
look people in the eye and tell them honestly that my goal for the conversation
is not to convert them to my way of thinking.
Yes, of course I want them to be saved, but I know it won’t happen by my
own human effort, and that takes the pressure off of talking with people that at
one time often led to frustrating arguments, and has replaced it with a
refreshing honesty.
My experience confirms what I read in Scripture. John 1 tells me as much: “Yet to all who did
receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become
children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or
a husband’s will, but born of God.” And
in Romans 9:16 Paul confirms that salvation “…does not, therefore, depend on
human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
For his part, Eric has gotten past an “angry atheist” stage. After reading and agreeing with the works of
authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens who are bitterly opposed to religion, he
has reached a point where he simply wants to be “good without God”. I think he has realized that when we speak
with anger, the anger itself becomes the focus rather than what we are trying
to say. He sees living at peace with
others rather than trying to force others into one’s own way of thinking as the
way to be good.
Why talk at all, if we aren’t trying to persuade one
another? I think we really are, only we
are learning to do so indirectly. While
I trust in the Holy Spirit to persuade the hearts of men, he trusts in the logic
and reason of his position to do the convincing. And why can’t we just leave well enough
alone? I think because a world view not
worth talking about, not to mention living and dying for, is a world view not
worth having.
No comments:
Post a Comment