From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: A True-Life Parable
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:33:47 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey


We've been discussing the definition of the word `polemics', and whether
polemics are acceptable given whatever definition you happen to prefer.

I suggest that this misses the point.  Nobody actually cares, in practice,
what words we use to describe our posts.  I might redefine `unacceptable'
to mean `encouraging', and then say "unacceptable posts are all we want".

But dickering over  * words *  does not get at what we want to discuss: we
want to talk about whether our posts accomplish anything worthwhile, and if
so at what cost.  That idea is what matters; we should be talking about the
* idea * , not the  * words * .


There are people on Christia who seem very concerned about arguing over truth.
Well, not just truth, but The Real Truth (tm).  That is, they are so convinced
that what they think is Truth (tm) that they are willing to ignore facts in
the defense of it.  I will give a hypothetical example based on messages that
I have gotten in my private mail.

	Suppose someone said "God exists because the moon is green cheese."
	If I were to reply `But the moon is not green cheese', I may get mail
	saying "He was trying to convert others and you interfered!"  These
	people are so concerned with TRUTH (God exists) that they didn't care
	about FACTS (the moon is not made of cheese).

Again, that was a made-up example -- but it is based on actual mail I have
gotten about actual arguments I have critiqued.

Something we should all remember is that our beliefs are NOT the Truth.  None
of us is perfect, none of us can justifiably say "everything I believe is
exactly correct and without flaw".  When we put our beliefs ahead of either
the facts available to us, or the Scriptures, we are going off course.

 *

Based on what I have been able to make out, some of the people on Christia
have two important misconceptions:

    a) that it is possible to convert others by argument.
and
    b) that any telling of the Gospel is a good one.

On (a), I'll just say that I've been participating on computer networks for
quite a few years, and on netnews more-or-less constantly since 1988.  I have
seen Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons debate with mainstream Christians; I have
seen Protestants bash Roman Catholics and RCs bash Protestants; I've seen
Muslims talk down to Christians and Christians talk down to Muslims.  I've
seen many different neo-pagan groups called `Satanic', and I've seen many
different "major religions" called mind-control.

And in all that time, in all those debates, I have never seen a single person
convert from one religion to another.  Well over 200,000 articles -- maybe as
many as half a million -- representing hundreds of thousands of hours of
writing and reading, and I've never seen one that said "You're right, and I'm
going to change my beliefs."  Never.

There have been a few minor shifts, almost always people becoming more
liberal.  I've seen Inerrantists drop Inerrancy, and I've seen anti-Catholics
become more ecumenical.  In most cases, I think the `liberalising' is due to
interaction with different people.  If you've never actually communicated with
a Roman Catholic, it's easy to have a caricature of them in your head.  When
you actually talk with one, and discover that not only is he HUMAN, but he has
the same basic beliefs and doubts and questions that you do, it becomes much
harder to imagine the RCC as some sort of cult that's out to get you.

But as far as major shifts, like dropping Calvinism or Arminianism, or
switching denominations, I have never seen anything which suggests that
computer networks make any difference.  Nobody has ever said that something on
the computer network caused a major change for them; nobody has ever been part
of a discussion and then suddenly changed positions ("Why, you're right!  Of
course Arminianism is unscriptural!"); nobody has ever reported that his posts
have caused others to convert.  Nothing like that has ever happened in the
4 1/2 years since I've been reading netnews consistently.


Computer networks are useful for sharing ideas, but the love of Christ does
not easily come shining through.  You can't hold a sick man's hand over a
phone line; Habitat for Humanity doesn't drive many nails with modems; soup
kitchens have little use for disk drives except to let small children sit on
them and reach the table.

With few exceptions, you cannot convert anyone through netnews debates.  In
the first place, a 200-line post does not have sufficient space to fully
address any theological issue.  Small facets, yes.  But a detailed discussion
of an issue is just not possible in 200 lines.  In the second place, people do
not come to God by their own intellectual pursuits; they come to God because
the spirit moves in them.  If someone sees Christ living through you, they may
recognise his Spirit when it moves in them; if all they see from Christians is
back-and-forth debating, they may believe that what they are experiencing has
nothing to do with Christ -- after all, Christians don't appear to care about
anything but arguing.

That is the first misconception: that it is possible to convert others by
argument.  The second misconception is that any telling of the Gospel is a
good one.

Someone once told me that he posted what he does because watching non-
Christians was like seeing a man soak himself with gasoline and then light a
match.  Surely one would shout "STOP!" to save a man about to burn; how can we
do less for a man heading for the fires of Hell?

But I never saw this; I only saw him saying "all those idiots are going to
burn!"  He was trying to put out a man's flaming jacket, but he was using a
firehose on full power -- he had the right idea, but what he was sending out
only pushed people away.

It is possible to have a good message and deliver it badly.  It is possible
to have good intentions and tell the truth and yet do more harm than good.


I like computer networks, and I think some good can come of them.  But if
you start to think of them as more than a lunchtime diversion, then you are
expecting too much.

So what's the parable I promised in the subject line, 123 lines ago?  Well,
it's in two parts:

One part is about a man who had some talents and spent them all on computer
equipment, hoping to evangelise the world.  The computers depreciated, nobody
converted, and in the end this man had nothing to show for all his time and
effort.  (This man has a lot of company among the various religions
represented on the computer groups.)

Another man, who had fewer talents, invested them in helping his neighbors.
He soon used up what he had been given; but as his neighbors got past their
problems, they joined him in helping others.  He never learned to use a
computer, but didn't have time for them anyway.  His concern for others showed
them the power of Christ's love, and in the end he went back to the Master
with a great return for the talents he had been given.  (This man never posts
anything; we've never seen him here on Christia.  He has no time.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by
 telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a 
 light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the
 source of it." -- Madeleine L'Engle
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU