One of the most common responses that I have ever had to cold evangelism (eg door knocking) is "I'm not interested," followed by the quick closing of the door and a phone call to everyone else in the street warning them to not answer the door. The second most common response essentially boils down to "Sure that might be right to you, but it isn't right for me." In some cases, everything you say might be agreed with, and the response will still be one of apathy. This is almost directly due to the post-modernist movement which says that "what's right for me is right for me and what's right for you is right for you"
This line of thinking is a real problem when it comes to something like evangelism of any sort because it denies logic of any sort. Now some of you might be saying that when it comes to religious evangelism you don't want logic to be the major factor in what you are saying. However without some level of logical background in what is being said, all sorts of stupidities can come out in arguments or discussions. For example everyone accepts the logical assumption that you get older as time goes on. If you find someone who denies this assumption at your birthday, you will have a hard time explaining to them the reason that you haven't already enjoyed your 50th birthday and why you won't be turning 15 again. When you deny basic logic, all sorts of things fly out the window. Which is why this line of thinking is a real problem for evangelism.
You say, "If you don't accept Jesus, you will go to hell; but if you do, then you will go with him to heaven" (which is a basic explanation of the gospel - there are better ones but this covers the bare essentials). The response comes back, "That might be right for you, but I don't believe it", close door and never hear from them again. Your line does not depend on whether it is believed or not, similar to "If you don't get out of the way of the bus, it will hit you and you will die; but if you do get out of the way, it will not hit you and you will not die". One person's denial of the existence of the bus doesn't mean that they can't be hit by it and die, on the contrary, it makes them more likely to get hit by the bus because they won't get out of it's way.
If you take the logic that an effect follows a cause, then you know that to avoid the effect, you need to avoid the cause.
Which is why this argument is so annoying. The fact that they won't accept it doesn't make it any less true, but it means that they won't accept anything that you say in regards to it and so you can't take any line of reason to get to the point where the simple assumption is accepted.
It is an obvious fallacy that people can't accept is a fallacy.
But the good news is that there is a fairly simple counter to it. It takes the form of a second line. The conversation so far has followed the basic form from above but as the door is about to be closed, you have to tell them that they don't actually believe that. Here is where it can be tricky as you've just told them that they are flat out Wrong and people are always Right. From here you need to point out the logical fallacy in their thinking gently since aggression in this form of evangelism almost never goes down well. However if they don't mind doing a bit of thinking about their thinking, you at least have them listening.
This line of thinking is a real problem when it comes to something like evangelism of any sort because it denies logic of any sort. Now some of you might be saying that when it comes to religious evangelism you don't want logic to be the major factor in what you are saying. However without some level of logical background in what is being said, all sorts of stupidities can come out in arguments or discussions. For example everyone accepts the logical assumption that you get older as time goes on. If you find someone who denies this assumption at your birthday, you will have a hard time explaining to them the reason that you haven't already enjoyed your 50th birthday and why you won't be turning 15 again. When you deny basic logic, all sorts of things fly out the window. Which is why this line of thinking is a real problem for evangelism.
You say, "If you don't accept Jesus, you will go to hell; but if you do, then you will go with him to heaven" (which is a basic explanation of the gospel - there are better ones but this covers the bare essentials). The response comes back, "That might be right for you, but I don't believe it", close door and never hear from them again. Your line does not depend on whether it is believed or not, similar to "If you don't get out of the way of the bus, it will hit you and you will die; but if you do get out of the way, it will not hit you and you will not die". One person's denial of the existence of the bus doesn't mean that they can't be hit by it and die, on the contrary, it makes them more likely to get hit by the bus because they won't get out of it's way.
If you take the logic that an effect follows a cause, then you know that to avoid the effect, you need to avoid the cause.
Which is why this argument is so annoying. The fact that they won't accept it doesn't make it any less true, but it means that they won't accept anything that you say in regards to it and so you can't take any line of reason to get to the point where the simple assumption is accepted.
It is an obvious fallacy that people can't accept is a fallacy.
But the good news is that there is a fairly simple counter to it. It takes the form of a second line. The conversation so far has followed the basic form from above but as the door is about to be closed, you have to tell them that they don't actually believe that. Here is where it can be tricky as you've just told them that they are flat out Wrong and people are always Right. From here you need to point out the logical fallacy in their thinking gently since aggression in this form of evangelism almost never goes down well. However if they don't mind doing a bit of thinking about their thinking, you at least have them listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment