How do you approach the reluctant? (Note guidelines in first post)

Speedwell

Non-Christians, please reserve your objections for a few days. Let's let the Christians have space to share their thoughts and best practices before we engage them.

Also, this is not intended to be a debate about the existence of God, as such, but about the practical details of how Christians try to persuade others to accept their beliefs. Please respect that intent as long as possible

Christians, as many of you know, I'm an atheist. To use the precise term, I'm an apostate, a former Christian who "deconverted" in my early 30s.

I was reading an article elsewhere online about how Christians share their version of Christianity with non-Christians with the object of making converts. The particular article was written by an atheist, and discussed several ways in which Christians approach non-believers ineffectively. References were made to another article, written by a Christian, that contained a list of "don't use this" arguments and "don't do this" actions.

This made me think. The Christian commenters here seem to be fairly articulate and thoughtful, for the most part. If there was a Christian gift of "gab", you are the ones who have it I remember being a Christian and I remember my own attempts to persuade others to believe as I did. I remember my motivations and my assumptions. Yours are unlikely to be very similar to mine. With that said, how would you answer (some or all of) the following questions?

• Do you think Christians in general need to make converts?
• Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?
• How do you recognise when the people you approach are receptive to what you have to say?
• How do you recognise when the people you approach are reluctant to engage with you on the subject?
• Do you attempt to persuade the reluctant, i.e. through quoting Scripture, using persuasive arguments, giving more information, trying to build a convincing case, addressing their objections, drawing their attention to consequences, etc.?
• If you do work to change minds, what arguments/actions do you find effective? Ineffective? Counterproductive?
• How do you recommend a non-believer respond to a Christian if the non-believer wishes to politely refuse to discuss the subject?
• Are you willing to entertain a non-believer's arguments in rebuttal?

Peregrinus

I've been involved for some years now working with people who are considering becoming Catholics. A couple of relevant points.

I've probably worked with about a hundred different people over the years. Not a single one of them had a conversion story which started with Christians seeking to convert them. My impression is that active attempts to engage anyone with a view to converting them is either useless or counterproductive.

A small minority come through what you might call independent intellectual enquiry. For whatever reason they become interested in religion, they think it might have something to offer them, they read up, they do their research, they start church-shopping, eventually they get to the point of making a formal approach to a parish or whatever to enquire.

But the great majority come as the result of a personal relationship. They have a family member, a romantic partner, a friend that they like (or love) and admire, and they see the role that religion plays in their life, and that's what engages them. Some have no prior connection with Christianity; many have a nominal connection (they were baptised in infancy, but that's it); some have been actively involved in other religions or other Christian traditions, but for whatever reason are looking around for something different.

Which means, in short, that you're unlikely to make converts by telling people about Christianity, but you may do so by exemplifying Christianity.

I'm in a group in my parish that, basically, meets people who have expressed an interest in becoming Catholics to (a) inform them, (b) answer their questions/address their concerns, (c) enable them to decide whether this is for them and (d) if they decide it is, prepare them for formal reception. We're upfront about the fact that we hope they will decide that this is for them, but we also make it clear that if they decide it isn't, that's fine; we've helped them towards a discernment, which is what we want to do. We don't go for the hard sell; if someone doesn't want to proceed, we wish them well and just point out that they know where we are, and they can come back and resume the conversation any time, if they ever choose to. They rarely do. Sometimes people withdraw for a while for other reasons (practical reasons, like a job posting that takes them away); they mostly re-engage, or pursue their enquiries elsewhere, but a few never do.

All of which will make my answers to your questions fairly obvious. I really only talk to people about Christianity if I have some positive reason to think they are interested. If they tell me they're not interested, or if that become clear from their manner, I respect that. If someone want to talk to me just because he's interested, but has absolutely no desire to become a Christian or a Catholic, that's fine. I never attempt to change people's minds; I just explain my own position to them, if they're interested, but if they don't share my position that's not a problem. The desired outcome is not that they should share my position; just that they should understand what it is.

As for quoting scripture to people, if they're not Christians scripture has no particular persuasive force or authority for them. So it's really only relevant it if help to explain Christian thinking or Christian practices on some point.

looksee

I am not objecting or offering an atheist approach, simply offering my views from my time as a church-goer.

The answer to all the questions except the last two would be 'no' or 'not applicable/within my experience'.

On the second last question, just smile and disengage, make vague, non committal noises, change the subject or move on to someone else. If they are being aggressive in their opinions I feel free to disagree. This works both ways.

On the last question, yes I am always willing - and have always been willing - to listen to arguments, and discuss them. Unless the person I am talking to has the mad gleam of an obsessive in their eye, then I usually flee. This also works both ways.

solodeogloria

Hi Speedwell,

I think these are helpful questions. I suspect I triggered some by how I answered a poster on another thread.

Do you think Christians in general need to make converts?

No Christian can make converts but we are all called to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:20)

Certain people have the gift of evangelism and there are evangelists within our churches. Paul sees them as one of the key functions in Ephesians 4:1-16. They equip the rest of the church to bear witness.

Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?

One of them is to evangelise (see my first answer to see my reluctance about converting, only Jesus draws people that the Father has given Him to Himself - in John 10 but as we speak His words people hear His voice some come and some don't). It's key for a Christian to long for non-Christians to know the Lord Jesus because it is better for them to.

Peter tells us that we all should have a reason for the hope that we have in the Lord Jesus if anyone asks (1 Peter 3:15).

How do you recognise when the people you approach are receptive to what you have to say?

If they are willing to spend time and hear Jesus speak in His word. I tend to keep a pack of these with me. I generally ask people if they get into a conversation about Christianity with me if they would like to meet me over coffee to look into Jesus more regularly one to one. I generally allow people to ask me whatever they want but I want Jesus to be the one who is speaking. When I've done this before I jot down questions each meeting and try answer them as best as I can for the next meeting at the start before we look at the next passage. I want Jesus to do the talking.

So, if someone isn't interested in listening to Jesus I tend to move on. I think that's what I aim to do on this forum also. When the conversation is more about politics or anything else other than Jesus I move on.

How do you recognise when the people you approach are reluctant to engage with you on the subject?

When they aren't willing to listen to what Jesus has to say. (see previous answer)

Do you attempt to persuade the reluctant, i.e. through quoting Scripture, using persuasive arguments, giving more information, trying to build a convincing case, addressing their objections, drawing their attention to consequences, etc.?

I try to answer their questions but I try let Jesus answer their questions where possible or look to other places in the Bible. Where the Bible is silent I think it's good to avoid speculation and let it be silent.

I want people to know Jesus not to see that I'm right. I need to repent when I think that way because this is about God and not about whether or not people think I'm right or clever or anything else.

If you do work to change minds, what arguments/actions do you find effective?

Pleading with God in prayer. Although sometimes I didn't do that and God was still kinder than I could imagine in bringing a friend to Jesus a number of years ago. There's nothing I can do to convert anyone. If there was a five point plan I could do I'd be trusting myself instead of an immeasurably loving God who loved us so much that He gives us His Son. I use the present tense there because Jesus shows us His mercy continually.

Ineffective? Counterproductive?

Not focusing on Jesus and His Word and getting caught down rabbit holes and insisting to be seen as right in every situation. Refusing to apologise to non-Christian friends or not showing non-Christian friends that they are a sinner so that they can look more godly. This really doesn't help because it doesn't give anyone an opportunity to see that you need Jesus continually. Also, something that is really bad is maintaining a friendship just with the hope of telling someone about Jesus. It's OK to have non-Christian friends and not talk about Jesus all the time and it's good to love them for friendships sake. I think some evangelical churches are bad at this.

I'm hugely guilty of all the things above. I want you to see the genuine things that Christians wrestle with daily.

How do you recommend a non-believer respond to a Christian if the non-believer wishes to politely refuse to discuss the subject?

Respect their wish. Keep being a good loving friend anyway. Introduce them to other Christian friends and keep praying that they might show an interest later.

I was chatting with a parent about how they are struggling with this with their son who has decided they aren't interested in Jesus. It's painful but of course you love anyway don't you?

Are you willing to entertain a non-believer's arguments in rebuttal?

Only if they are genuinely willing to consider following Jesus. If not I'd rather have a conversation about something else and get to know them better.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Speedwell

Heh, Solo, it wasn't directed at you specifically. To be honest it's something I was working up to posting anyway, but was set into motion by a blogger's post over on Patheos.

beach_walker

I do think we as Christians have a duty to "convert" in a sense. What I mean is that we undoubtedly have a requirement to spread the good news but I think sometimes people can take this a bit too literally. I think back to my atheist days and how I came to the fold, in order to formulate my approach to the topic.

I don't seek out people to convert but rather live my life according to Christian beliefs, hope that my example will encourage others, and am pretty open about it on being asked. I think being willing to engage is the key thing. For instance, last Good Friday a load of work peoples were organising a get together. I declined (for obvious reasons!) but evidentially one of the lads wasn't aware of my religion so asked why I wasn't going. I explained, he was genuinely curious and asked some more questions. I didn't hagger him thereafter to attend Mass or anything but maybe I've sown a seed?

As long as the non-believer isn't some rabid sort, then of course I'll hear arguments against/rebuttals.

lazybones32

Most of the Q's don't really apply to me but I can see how they would seem apt to other denominations. I have a qualitative standard rather than quantitative one: how much actual and genuine love can I show to those who cross my path in my everyday life, rather than, say, telling 6 different people 5 days a week about Jesus.

99 times, I won't be the one bringing up the topic of God, religion or prayer because I always hated talking to a person who has an angle or is trying to sell something to you. I've had people feign interest until it became clear I wasn't interested in what they were promoting and I then was as important to them as dust.
When people do raise issues or ask Q's, I answer depending on the scenario and my knowledge and ability to talk. I don't like talking about personal matters with people and Christ is very personal to me.

A firm but polite "No thank you" is usually enough when someone doesn't want to discuss something...usually.
Mostly I'm open to hearing any contradiction but if they are disrespectful, mudslinging or just some fool who wants to throw stones or try to get a rise, then I won't entertain them. Time is too precious.


I like how, before you addressed Christians on the Christianity sub-forum, you addressed non-Christians first, asking them to refrain from making objections....that made me smile.

Giacomo McGubbin

Speedwell wrote: »

• Do you think Christians in general need to make converts?

No, you can't "make" converts. In my own experience, it's takes a sincere desire, curiosity, impartiality and prayer on the part of the person, and a willingness to follow the truth wherever it may lead, and what the truth will lead to you to giving up and letting go of. Only a genuine a spiritual experience and interaction with God will convert a person.

Speedwell wrote: »

• Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?

No.

Speedwell wrote: »

• How do you recognise when the people you approach are receptive to that you have to say?

• How do you recognise when the people you approach are reluctant to engage with you on the subject?

I don't approach people, if it does happen they approach me.

Speedwell wrote: »

• Do you attempt to persuade the reluctant, i.e. through quoting Scripture, using persuasive arguments, giving more information, trying to build a convincing case, addressing their objections, drawing their attention to consequences, etc.?

No. What I do find though is that most people (including many Christians/Catholics) have been fed a diet of inaccuracies about Christianity and Catholicism in particular. If they are genuinely interested if something is accurate or not I'll tell them, otherwise no. False claims on the Christianity forum about Christianity and Catholicism is about the only other thing I sometimes bother to respond to. But it's usually the same thing over and over. An FAQ to address the same false claims continually made on the forum might be useful, but then again the people making them aren't too keen on the truth about Christianity and Catholicism being posted.

Speedwell wrote: »

• If you do work to change minds, what arguments/actions do you find effective? Ineffective? Counterproductive?

I don't change minds. God does. No intellectual talk, as interesting and stimulating as some of them are, can replace experiencing God. It's like talking to a deaf person about the joys of music and trying to explain to them what music is. After a while the deaf person is going to get annoyed, and who can blame them, because they have no comprehension of sound never mind music. It's not a perfect analogy I'm sure, but it's the closest I can come to explaining it.

Speedwell wrote: »

• How do you recommend a non-believer respond to a Christian if the non-believer wishes to politely refuse to discuss the subject?

Same as you do with anyone else. Thanks, but I'm not interested.

Speedwell wrote: »

• Are you willing to entertain a non-believer's arguments in rebuttal?

I don't receive them in rebuttal. I receive them uninvited either personally, or more often constantly in the media. I find it's the anti-Christians that are by far the one's most obsessed today about bringing religion into every thing they can possibly think of. It's as if they are desperate to continually reassure and convince themselves and others that those of faith are wrong. I've heard the same inaccurate claims against the faith over and over at this stage, with slight variations. I've yet to see any claim against Christianity and Catholicism that stands up to detailed scrutiny. But if any new one comes up, I investigate it for myself.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Can I just ask those who have said that it isn't a Christian duty to share our faith with others - how are people going to hear of the Lord Jesus if we're not willing to be open about Him?

How will all have the opportunity to come to know Him?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Well, there's a quote attributed to St. Francis - "Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words." The point is that your actions, the way you live, are a far more effective witness than anything you might say.

And this ties in with the point I made earlier. What brings people to enquire about the gospel is nearly always their encounter with Christianity As She Is Lived. They are drawn (or, alas, repelled) by what Christians do, not by what they say. When they get to the point where they want to hear about Christianity, they'll ask. Telling them about Christianity when they don't want to hear about it is very unlikely to be an effective form of witness - and, in truth, is probably going to have the opposite effect.

homer911

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Can I just ask those who have said that it isn't a Christian duty to share our faith with others - how are people going to hear of the Lord Jesus if we're not willing to be open about Him?

How will all have the opportunity to come to know Him?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The specific question asked was "Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?"

I don't agree with the basis of the question..

Its a Christian's duty to share the love of God that no nothing of it - that may involve talking about it, but there are many non-verbal ways a Christian can share the love of God with unbelievers.

Wasn't it St. Francis who said something like "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words"

Secondly, its the Holy Spirit that "converts" people, not us. If we think it is us they we are very mistaken.

Speedwell

homer911 wrote: »

The specific question asked was "Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?"

I don't agree with the basis of the question..

Its a Christian's duty to share the love of God that no nothing of it - that may involve talking about it, but there are many non-verbal ways a Christian can share the love of God with unbelievers.

Wasn't it St. Francis who said something like "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words"

Secondly, its the Holy Spirit that "converts" people, not us. If we think it is us they we are very mistaken.

I did in fact mean to ask specifically about conversation as a conversion tool, but all of your answers about non-conversational sharing are valuable as well, thanks.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Firstly I've been very clear about what God's work is and what ours is.

Secondly - the Gospel is a communicable message which is delivered by words. Actions can cause people to think but they aren't an alternative to words. I'm not with Francis.

I've also not said anything about sharing with those who don't want to hear. We need to take care not to misrepresent each other's point. The question was answered that it isn't a duty to share verbally at all. Which Biblically seems to be untrue.

I disagree with your view that people aren't drawn to Christianity as it is verbally shared Peregrinus. I know several people come to follow Jesus through reading the Bible one to one or coming to church with a friend. It's both not either or in my experience.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I don't think actions are opposed to words. But the Great Commission is to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." It's left up to us to discern what role talking to people has in all this, and that seems to me to be a pragmatic, practical question; how effective is talking to people as a way of making disciples of them?

And my feeling is that, if talking about Jesus to people is your starting-point, it's unlikely to be very effective at all. But it definitely has a central role to play at points further along the road to disciplehood. So perhaps the real question is not whether you should talk to people, but when you should. And I think, if you have to give a one-line answer to that, it's "when you have good reason to think they will be receptive".

The JWs, famously, seek to introduce people to the faith by knocking on their doors more or less at random and talking to them. I recall reading that a long-term study in the UK calculated that they got about 1 new convert for every 40,000 doors knocked on, which you'd think is not a great strike rate.

On the other hand, if you're a JW, then the odds are that either you were converted following a doorknock, or you're descended from someone who was, or you know many people in your congregation who were converted this way, or are descended from someone converted this way. From inside the JWs, therefore, doorknocking looks very effective, since the evidence of successful conversions is all around them.

OK, doorknocking is a particularly extreme form of the uninvited verbal approach, but I still think it has a lesson for us. When people have no reason to think you have any special authority or insight or wisdom, telling them what you think about something is very unlikely to impress them or persuade them or change their minds. Why would it? So I think if your preaching is to bear fruit, you have to be somebody who has already earned respect and attention, or at the very least affection, from the person you are preaching to.

So maybe I'd gloss Francis a bit. At some point, it will be necessary to use words to preach the gospel. But that point is very unlikely to be the beginning.

Nick Park

As a Christian minister I have, over the last 20 years or more, seen thousands of people move from a position of unbelief to one of faith in God. I can't think of a single one which was a result of someone winning an argument.

Bear in mind that the following observations apply to a form of Christianity where people belong primarily by choice (not because they were born into a religion) and where church plays a large part in the lives of individual members.

The most common reason I see for someone embracing the Christian faith is because they saw something positive in the life of someone with whom they had some kind of relationship (family, friend, work colleague) and they wanted to experience that for themselves. Therefore they asked questions and began attending church events.

The second most common reason is that people are drawn to a Christian community (usually a local church) because they want to belong to a group of people who show genuine love and concern to each other. They quite happily attach themselves to the Christian community while not initially believing Christian doctrine - in other words, they belong before they believe. After a while, listening to Christians discussing their beliefs, they decide 'Yes. This makes sense to me.'

I think the common characteristic here is that people do not primarily become Christians because they think Christianity is true (that comes later). They become Christians because they find that Christianity works. A large number of people find that living as a Christian makes them happier, more fulfilled, and better able to cope with life. Everyone (Christian or not) tends to interpret the world in ways that are consistent with our experiences. Therefore Christians quite naturally adopt a worldview where their beliefs satisfactorily explain to them why their life has changed for the better. In other words, they adopt a pragmatic view that since Christianity works in their lives then it is probably true.

So, in the light of all of that, how does that influence my conversation with others who don't share my faith? It certainly doesn't lead me to try to persuade anyone with arguments. I'm happy to listen to their views - and I will correct erroneous misconceptions they might have about Christianity.

But most of all I'm happy to talk to them about what's going on my life and about things I'm passionate about (human rights, current affairs, Arsenal FC, Scandinavian-Noir detective novels). Often in the course of conversation I might mention, as an aside and in the context of the discussion, about my own experiences in the past when I was homeless. This often causes people to ask more questions about how my life changed. I'm surprised at how often people express an interest in coming to Church or following up on the things we've talked about.

Speedwell

These are all amazing answers, folks, thank you so much for taking the topic seriously. As a "backslider" who lived in the religious American South for many years, who used to share your faith, and who still has family and friends who are devout, I've been subjected to everything from "Have a blessed day!" from the engineering department secretary all the way up to "You are not leaving this house until you give me some solid answers as to why you chose to deny the Lord" (from my younger brother, no less, while I was visiting his family). I try to be respectful of people's faith unless they confront me; after all, I was given space to think about matters of faith and draw my own conclusions, and I can only give others space to do the same. My own feeling is that there's no real value to any point of view unless the person got to that point on their own and by a bona fide review of all available evidence.

Please go on, I'm really enjoying this. if you have any questions for me to answer, I will do my best to give thoughtful and reasonable replies.

looksee

I have an acquaintance that I chat to maybe a couple of times a year. She is from Texas and is inclined to give me little nudges in the direction of understanding what I am missing by not being religious. This would be well and good except these nudges are interspersed with observations about the shortcomings and undesirability of immigrants and people with darker skin than her, and how dangerous communist ideas like healthcare and welfare are. An excellent example of what has already been proposed, that one's lifestyle and outlook is a better persuader than preaching.

(after her last effort I am proposing to be out of the country next time she hoves on the horizon )

antiskeptic

Speedwell wrote: »

Do you think Christians in general need to make converts?

No. A persons conversion is a matter between themselves and God. The presumption is that God is active in the attempt to 'bring all to himself'. By all means talk about your own faith in circumstances where that's appropriate. By all means discuss the problems (as you see them) with sustaining a lack of faith in God. By all means express your faith in work and attribute to God as causal (where appropriate)

Perhaps the above will contribute to a persons coming to faith somewhere down the line. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, fine.

Do you believe it is your duty as a Christian to make converts by talking about your beliefs?

Not a duty. The question of God comes up naturally and I don't see a natural desire to express on the subject as something arising from duty. I'd like others to know something of what I believe to be a vital thing. Who knows, they might progress further than me and give me a dig out some day in my own bumping into the verges as I do.

How do you recognise when the people you approach are receptive to what you have to say?

In the same way I recognize it about anything else I might be talking about. People give off cues.

Do you attempt to persuade the reluctant, i.e. through quoting Scripture, using persuasive arguments, giving more information, trying to build a convincing case, addressing their objections, drawing their attention to consequences, etc.?

I tend to argue a case when presented with a counter case. Argue in the sense of cut and thrust - not fighting.

In a non-God discussion with a nephew recently, we were looking at multinationalism, globalisation, the concentration of power and the like. In order to counter the somewhat fatalistic direction of the conversation, I pointed out that no matter how seemingly unstoppable, the tendency is for all empires to crumble at some point. In passing, I quoted from Ecclesiastes, the assertion there that there really is nothing new under the Sun. The pattern this time around will be fundamentally as it was before, and before that.

From there, the conversation moved into morality, objective (with the conclusions that arise from deciding that morality is) vs. subjective and the God/no God issues that arise from that. I would use things the Bible says by way of 'educating' what the biblical position is (to one who probably hasn't much insight into it)

Certainly trying to raise questions and give some indication as to the reach of the Bible. But not to convert.

If you do work to change minds, what arguments/actions do you find effective? Ineffective? Counterproductive?

Counterproductive? Doing what I did when I was first converted. Bending folks ears with a truth that blind eyes simply couldn't see. You can really turn people off that way

Productive? Bar for an alcoholic friend who "I led" to the Lord, I can't say I know whether I've been productive or not. If there's a genuine opportunity for discussion/meeting challenge around the subject then I'll have at it in the hope that might help a person along the path.

How do you recommend a non-believer respond to a Christian if the non-believer wishes to politely refuse to discuss the subject?

Politely refuse to discuss the subject. You owe the Christian nothing other than common politeness.

Are you willing to entertain a non-believer's arguments in rebuttal?

I enjoy argumentation so would certainly listen them out. If a day comes when their argument is compelling then I'd be willing to be converted. I think, however, that the mountain to clamber is too high on both sides. I can no more argue a person into the kingdom than they can me out of it. There are an infinite amount of obstacles for either side to overcome. Which is why it must be, ultimately, of God. And the person themselves.

lazybones32

Speedwell wrote: »

if you have any questions for me to answer, I will do my best to give thoughtful and reasonable replies.

What denomination were you?
Did your church have an evangelisation/outreach programme?
Did you ever do the street evangelising thing? Were you pushy?:)

Speedwell

lazybones32 wrote: »

What denomination were you?
Did your church have an evangelisation/outreach programme?
Did you ever do the street evangelising thing? Were you pushy?:)

Good questions. None of them simple! People accuse me of overcomplicating things sometimes, so I'll try to give you a simple answer first and then elaborate.

Short answers: Denomination, generally Reformed, still probably "on the books" of a Presbyterian church in America. Evangelism and outreach in the churches I went to seemed to emphasise missionary work far away over outreach work in the community. Never did street evangelising, and although I was not ashamed to be a Christian I was not "in your face" about it.

To give you a thorough answer, I have to recite my history with churches in general, and it's unfortunately a very long story. My father was brought up Hungarian Reformed until he moved to the US, where he met my mother, who had been brought up as a secular Jew until she caught "spirituality" in college, joined the Unitarian Universalists, then started attending a very middle-of-the-road Presbyterian (UPCUSA) church in Pittsburgh. They were married in that church and our family stayed generally within that denomination through several house moves in my childhood (with one digression to a comparable Northern Methodist church and one to a Northern Baptist church for about a year each, "Northern" indicating comparatively less emphasis on evangelicalism/fundamentalism). When the PCUSA was formed, we joined it. For some reason my father gravitated to Presbyterian churches that named themselves after John Knox and had a lot of Scottish members and influence (at least one openly claimed to have Scottish Presbyterian heritage). We did go to church in the usual weekly pattern, one morning Sunday service, one evening Sunday gathering, "women's group" on Tuesday morning for Mom when the kids were small and she was at home, and "youth group" on Wednesday night when the kids were teenagers. Since the age of eleven, because I could read music and had a mature enough voice, I mostly watched the back of the preacher's head from the choir loft. One of my closest friends in high school was Episcopalian and I used to go to church with him quite often, even joining him on the music team for an Episcopalian youth retreat each summer. When we went to college, he and I went to his church together every week. After I left college and went out on my own due to my parents' disruptive divorce, I held a number of low-paid jobs that left me no time to attend regularly, though I still tried very hard to read and pray at home and to continue to attend church (another "John Knox" church, as it happened). My first husband came from a Southern Baptist tradition that was repellent to me, and he was a repellent sort, really; I divorced him because he was abusive. As a Parthian shot, he joined a very fundamentalist Bible church after I left him and attempted to claim that because his newfound beliefs prohibited divorce, he wouldn't give me one (the law fortunately took a dim view of that). I had a rather bad experience with the Salvation Army in a shelter while briefly homeless due to losing a job, since I found their lowbrow, fanboy religion very obnoxious and they chose to read my disdain as rejection of Christ instead of rejection of their heavy-handed tactics. After that I was mostly churchless until, one Easter morning while reading the Bible, it all just stopped making sense anymore (I'll go into my deconversion separately if you like). Around the time of the second Gulf wars I tried going to Quaker meeting in a very liberal meetinghouse in Houston, a building whose ceiling houses a famous work of light art. I found them congenial and the silent worship earnest and refreshing and the social activism energising, but even so I found myself having to redefine too much of the faith and practice to make it make sense to me at all, and I realised I was just trying too hard and making things hard for the people there. Since then I haven't been in a church, not even for weddings or christenings.

My mother continued to become increasingly devout, winding up at last in a Four Square Pentacostal church in California a few years before she died. My father tried never to let on much while I was growing up, but he was frankly agnostic until his death, despite being an elder for something like twenty years in his Presbyterian church in Texas (his minister told me at the funeral, not without a certain amusement, that she had always known my father was an agnostic). My younger brother, along with his wife and children, is a Texas Southern Baptist, does not "believe" in evolution, and is generally one of the type of American fundamentalist Tea Party "patriots" that people like to laugh at in the media, full stop. The rest of my family (my mother's side; I have no contact with my father's family) is thoroughly secular, though culturally they stick closely to their Jewish heritage. My husband rarely talks about religion at all; according to his mother he was brought up vaguely Church of Ireland "but it didn't stick". His family resisted being on one "side" or another; there are a few Protestant/Catholic couples. Only his brother is very religious at all.

I cannot blame the Church for "turning me away" from Christianity. If I had been able to turn to it for more support while I was younger and desperate, my life would have been much different, but I can't say I wouldn't still have eventually become an atheist. That was just ideological, not even really emotional at all. In church, I was always the kind who asked questions, not the kind who insisted other people accept my answers. I still don't have a lot of emotional investment in whether people think I'm right or not, though I enjoy intellectual debate because I'm wired in that typically Jewish way, lol. Reality has a way of sticking up for itself.

Nick Park

Speedwell wrote: »

Good questions. None of them simple! People accuse me of overcomplicating things sometimes, so I'll try to give you a simple answer first and then elaborate.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Sometimes, in this forum, Christians complain when atheists stereotype them unfairly. But we do the same thing often. Perhaps too much exposure to a string of God-hating teenage keyboard warriors causes us to forget that some people have reached their lack of faith in a much more thoughtful way.

I think sharing some part of our backstories is helpful, because it removes some of the faceless aspect of this kind of format - which in turn makes it much harder to resort to keyboard rage.

lazybones32

Speedwell wrote: »

Good questions. None of them simple! People accuse me of overcomplicating things sometimes, so I'll try to give you a simple answer first and then elaborate.

Short answers: Denomination, generally Reformed, still probably "on the books" of a Presbyterian church in America. Evangelism and outreach in the churches I went to seemed to emphasise missionary work far away over outreach work in the community. Never did street evangelising, and although I was not ashamed to be a Christian I was not "in your face" about it.

To give you a thorough answer, I have to recite my history with churches in general, and it's unfortunately a very long story. My father was brought up Hungarian Reformed until he moved to the US, where he met my mother, who had been brought up as a secular Jew until she caught "spirituality" in college, joined the Unitarian Universalists, then started attending a very middle-of-the-road Presbyterian (UPCUSA) church in Pittsburgh. They were married in that church and our family stayed generally within that denomination through several house moves in my childhood (with one digression to a comparable Northern Methodist church and one to a Northern Baptist church for about a year each, "Northern" indicating comparatively less emphasis on evangelicalism/fundamentalism). When the PCUSA was formed, we joined it. For some reason my father gravitated to Presbyterian churches that named themselves after John Knox and had a lot of Scottish members and influence (at least one openly claimed to have Scottish Presbyterian heritage). We did go to church in the usual weekly pattern, one morning Sunday service, one evening Sunday gathering, "women's group" on Tuesday morning for Mom when the kids were small and she was at home, and "youth group" on Wednesday night when the kids were teenagers. Since the age of eleven, because I could read music and had a mature enough voice, I mostly watched the back of the preacher's head from the choir loft. One of my closest friends in high school was Episcopalian and I used to go to church with him quite often, even joining him on the music team for an Episcopalian youth retreat each summer. When we went to college, he and I went to his church together every week. After I left college and went out on my own due to my parents' disruptive divorce, I held a number of low-paid jobs that left me no time to attend regularly, though I still tried very hard to read and pray at home and to continue to attend church (another "John Knox" church, as it happened). My first husband came from a Southern Baptist tradition that was repellent to me, and he was a repellent sort, really; I divorced him because he was abusive. As a Parthian shot, he joined a very fundamentalist Bible church after I left him and attempted to claim that because his newfound beliefs prohibited divorce, he wouldn't give me one (the law fortunately took a dim view of that). I had a rather bad experience with the Salvation Army in a shelter while briefly homeless due to losing a job, since I found their lowbrow, fanboy religion very obnoxious and they chose to read my disdain as rejection of Christ instead of rejection of their heavy-handed tactics. After that I was mostly churchless until, one Easter morning while reading the Bible, it all just stopped making sense anymore (I'll go into my deconversion separately if you like). Around the time of the second Gulf wars I tried going to Quaker meeting in a very liberal meetinghouse in Houston, a building whose ceiling houses a famous work of light art. I found them congenial and the silent worship earnest and refreshing and the social activism energising, but even so I found myself having to redefine too much of the faith and practice to make it make sense to me at all, and I realised I was just trying too hard and making things hard for the people there. Since then I haven't been in a church, not even for weddings or christenings.

My mother continued to become increasingly devout, winding up at last in a Four Square Pentacostal church in California a few years before she died. My father tried never to let on much while I was growing up, but he was frankly agnostic until his death, despite being an elder for something like twenty years in his Presbyterian church in Texas (his minister told me at the funeral, not without a certain amusement, that she had always known my father was an agnostic). My younger brother, along with his wife and children, is a Texas Southern Baptist, does not "believe" in evolution, and is generally one of the type of American fundamentalist Tea Party "patriots" that people like to laugh at in the media, full stop. The rest of my family (my mother's side; I have no contact with my father's family) is thoroughly secular, though culturally they stick closely to their Jewish heritage. My husband rarely talks about religion at all; according to his mother he was brought up vaguely Church of Ireland "but it didn't stick". His family resisted being on one "side" or another; there are a few Protestant/Catholic couples. Only his brother is very religious at all.

I cannot blame the Church for "turning me away" from Christianity. If I had been able to turn to it for more support while I was younger and desperate, my life would have been much different, but I can't say I wouldn't still have eventually become an atheist. That was just ideological, not even really emotional at all. In church, I was always the kind who asked questions, not the kind who insisted other people accept my answers. I still don't have a lot of emotional investment in whether people think I'm right or not, though I enjoy intellectual debate because I'm wired in that typically Jewish way, lol. Reality has a way of sticking up for itself.

ehh... I had a few more Q's but am nearly afraid to ask!

Speedwell

lazybones32 wrote: »

ehh... I had a few more Q's but am nearly afraid to ask!

heh I talk for posterity, don't I I hope I mostly answered your questions in the short paragraph up top. Ask away; I doubt I will be so wordy again!