So in a sense then, what we do with people is we say, "Let's look at your model of the universe and hold it up against reality. Does it really take reality into account?" We can sort of join them in looking at that. If they are willing to say, "You know I don't think my view of reality, my model, really does take all of reality into account," then we can say, "Well, let me show you how mine works. Let's see if mine takes reality into account." And we are going to both be sure that there are modifications needed because none of us has a perfect view of the universe. But there becomes more of a collaborative process there, and it becomes an ongoing conversation with a potential for influence. So I think we are going to help people come to Christ through influence rather than coercion by argument.
Advertisement
I really think our modern apologetics ended up being about coercion by argument. I love what Soren Kierkeggard said about this way back in the early 1800's. He talked about why the indirect approach to truth is better than the direct approach. He said if I make a direct approach and say I am right and you are wrong, I am forcing you to, in a sense, lose face in front of me and surrender to me. But if instead I present to you "Here's how I see things and why don't you think about it and compare it to how you see things," then I allow you to go off in private and figure this out and before God you can make your changes. That way I am asking you to humble yourself before God, not before me. It is like childbirth. It has got to be done very gently. It has got to let the process be at work.
Preaching: You talk about the need to learn a new rhetoric. Obviously part of rhetoric is language. Have you sensed that your use of language has changed?
McClaren: This is so important. Here is a place where I think the whole seeker movement and church growth movement really helped us, because they reminded us that we have so much insider jargon. Very often people are turned away from our message not because they disagree with it but because they just feel overwhelmed with jargon that they don't understand.
I got some insight into this a few years ago. A friend of mine is a committed Buddhist, and I figured I couldn't carry on a lot of extended conversation with him unless I understood a little bit more about Buddhism. So he gave me a bunch of Buddhist literature and I just felt inundated with all of these Hindu or Sanskrit terms. I just felt: if you people are really trying to help me understand Buddhism, why don't you translate this into English for me, or why don't you give me a nice glossary to let me know why you are using these terms?
I think we have a similar challenge in the words we use -- finding ways to make things clear. Of course Jesus exemplifies this with His telling stories. This is not the difference between modern and postmodern. I think in the modern world we really believe that truth can reside in isolated words. But I think in a postmodern world we have more confidence in truth residing in stories such as parables than just in isolated, technical words.
