# When unbelievers ask about intramural debates



## Tim (Apr 9, 2012)

I am often hesitant to discuss with unbelievers when they happen to ask me about an issue that I know to be controversial _within_ the church. For example, in the past, I have allowed an unbeliever to witness me debating the doctrines of grace with a fierce Arminian. I felt afterward that this was unwise. More recently, I have had unbelievers ask me why I don't celebrate Easter, even though I am a Christian. 

Please suggest ways to deal with such questions.


----------



## Zach (Apr 9, 2012)

I usually say just that, "It is controversial within the Church." I let them know that I believe that based on my understanding of the Scriptures I believe one position to be correct while also telling them that very sincere brothers and sisters in Christ believe otherwise. Something I wish I did more would be to turn the discussion to Christ and display how in spite of our disagreements we find unity in the person of Christ and what he accomplished for sinners and share the gospel with them.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 9, 2012)

Pretty much what Zach said. I find unbelievers often take refuge behind the idea that "10 people wil have 10 opinions" on a matter, and assert the same of the Church. I don't argue with them. The Lord will call His own.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2012)

The unbeliever often seems to have a ridiculously "flat" notion of serious issues.

There's a real naivete that says that anything of real value must be instantly understood by all "reasonable" people, and that all the arguments on the "vital questions" of life have been answered. All that's left are people making mountains out of molehills.

People who talk/think like this show how completely clueless they are on almost everything outside their narrow band of experiences. Just because they are uninterested in attending an international conference of physicists, and listening to complex papers, or a debate on an esoteric fine point, doesn't mean that the issues being discussed couldn't possibly be significant, or significant to them personally. It shows a profound degree of deafness to even the possibility that something they haven't spent much time thinking about already might still impact them, possibly even threaten them. Imagine if the conference was taking place in the 1930s, and the subject had been the potential of atomic power.

Many, if not most atheists are about as philosophically serious as the religious "fundamentalist bumpkins" they mock, and most of them less so.

The fact is, that just as the "important questions" in the hard sciences, or in the soft sciences, or the humanities, or philosophy, engender debate and discussion, and these ostensible quests-for-truth motivate people; so too religious debate and disagreement reveal the "empirical fact" that some indisputably intelligent people--in fact, LOTS of people, and for generations--have realized (or thought) that these issues are worth the time to argue them.

Yes, there are "arguments" over sports teams. And they appear trivial to many of us observers. Still, those debates prove at least one thing: that some people have invested enough in the project to offer reasoned arguments for their conclusions. Not every argument over sports is on the level of "My team is best! No, MY team is!"

What we really need the unbeliever to admit is that he thinks that all "religous questions" are trivial. Make him spell out that objection, and then see if he can defend his dismissal, in light of the actual weight of the questions that our faith purports to address.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 10, 2012)

John 17:



> 20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
> 
> 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, *that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent *me.
> 
> 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



It appears that our visible unity as believers is one way in which people believe in God. Thus, our disunity and in-fighting is a poor witness to the outside world.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2012)

The logic doesn't quite follow. Unity can be appealing for the right reasons, but also for wrong reasons. Besides, Jesus doesn't simply pray for "visible unity," so the lack of that trait does not automatically translate into encouragement of unbelief.

Paul doesn't "approve" of infighting, see Rom.16:17, 1Cor.1:10; 3:3.
But he can also write:


> 1Cor.11:18-19 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there *must be factions* among you in order that those who are *genuine* among you may be recognized.


He makes a qualified acknowledgment that certain kinds or expressions of "party-spirit" are inevitable in a fallen world, and that they can serve the cause of truth by the grace of God.

We must "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jd.1:3), or the devil alone will have his way under the banner of the church.

Say what we will about the grief of division and disunity, the world will make what it will of what it sees; whether of harmony or of contention.

But it certainly does make for the attraction of beauty, when "brethren dwell together in unity" (Ps.133:1).


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 10, 2012)

Tim said:


> I am often hesitant to discuss with unbelievers when they happen to ask me about an issue that I know to be controversial _within_ the church. For example, in the past, I have allowed an unbeliever to witness me debating the doctrines of grace with a fierce Arminian. I felt afterward that this was unwise. More recently, I have had unbelievers ask me why I don't celebrate Easter, even though I am a Christian.
> 
> Please suggest ways to deal with such questions.



Play down controversy within Zion in front of the Gentiles. It will either be casting pearls before swine, or giving them grist to their unbelieving mill. Try and swing conversations round to to the central issues of the Gospel with which the unbeliever _should_ be concerned.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 10, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Play down controversy within Zion in front of the Gentiles. It will either be casting pearls before swine, or giving them grist to their unbelieving mill. Try and swing conversations round to to the central issues of the Gospel with which the unbeliever _should_ be concerned.


I agree, but we need to be honest and explain that as fallen beings we will disagree. We do not help ourselves or the gospel by "sweeping things under the rug" any more than we do by making minor issues major debates. 

But I always like to turn the question around and ask the unbeliever if he/she agrees lock-step with all of his/her friends on every little matter.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 10, 2012)

I"ve said, and say, something like "All true followers of Jesus Christ believe His Word--the Bible--and thus hold together a large body of truth. Within that body there are differences on lesser issues but the main body of truth is held by all believers." 

I think Christians err when dealing with non-Christians if we do not say something along those lines when speaking to certain issues. If they ask me about eschatology, for instance, and I answer them as if this is "the" Christian view and no one holds anything else, we may reason from what else they say that it's unwise to qualify what we say because they don't know otherwise. I find this mistaken. The non-Christians may know that others hold different positions or they may come to find that out and it might render what we've said to them as suspect, if we never acknowledged that this is a teaching over which good men differ. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Curt (Apr 10, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I"ve said, and say, something like "All true followers of Jesus Christ believe His Word--the Bible--and thus hold together a large body of truth. Within that body there are differences on lesser issues but the main body of truth is held by all believers."



Wise statement, in my estimation. I can recall (although it really WAS a long time ago) when I was a belligerent non-believer and enjoyed bringing up the strife in the church, for instance the problems Lutherans had leading to Seminex (seminary in exile).


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 10, 2012)

Tim said:


> I am often hesitant to discuss with unbelievers when they happen to ask me about an issue that I know to be controversial _within_ the church. For example, in the past, I have allowed an unbeliever to witness me debating the doctrines of grace with a fierce Arminian. I felt afterward that this was unwise. More recently, I have had unbelievers ask me why I don't celebrate Easter, even though I am a Christian.
> 
> Please suggest ways to deal with such questions.



One thing that may be helpful is don't let your mind make you "afraid." Just answer what you know to be true and trust God for the results, even if you don't explain it well or deliver it well. The enemy will accuse the believer of doing this, constantly.

But in the context of a sovereign God, its not really up to us to persuade or control the reaction, it's up to the Holy Spirit to illuminate the understanding, and God to work the circumstances to the good pleasure of His own will.

This takes the pressure, and some of the fear off of us to speak.

Sometimes, of course, it is appropriate not to speak, but many times its fear, pride that restrains us.

Likewise, don't accept the premise that everything (in you or the house of God) has to seem "perfect" to an unbeliever before you have a right to engage them.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 10, 2012)

Another aspect is that disagreement will be found in every subset of humanity over every subject. Whether philosophy, science, faith, atheism, food, dress, ad infinitum. Does that fact then construe that all those things are unworthy of consideration? The fact that individuals will differ as to what constitutes truth does not mean that truth should not be pursued. It's a red herring.


----------

