Modern thought forms

Knowing the modern thought forms and their characteristics is crucial for reaching out to today's generation--and the future generations.

Postmodernism is a good starting place for discussion.

The goals are to a) understand the basic claims of the worldview, b) discuss how to connect with someone who holds this worldview, c) reach out.

Dr. Zacharias writes, "I have often said the challenge of the truth speaker today is this: How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?"

How do you reach a generation like that? A generation that no longer believes in the concept of truth, no longer believes in the concept of absolute morals, a generation with a sociological breakdown of justice (where there are next to none who would go to assist a stranger)?

__________________

Good topic sweetsoulsong.

Not to over 'spiritualize' it from the get go, but I do think Christians need to all agree on: we have the answer (that is, Christ).

I am very committed to seeing Christian ministries that are effective in reaching our world. The church by and large, has become introverted and self-centered. And its perspective has lost its cutting edge in terms of reaching the outside world. We should have a philosophy of ministry in the church, that is to create a church that is so exciting that people will want to come, and so fulfilling that people won’t want to leave.

There has to be something in our mentality of ministry if we are going to do that, that reaches a group that I call the godless heathen (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way). Not the disillusioned Christian, not the church drop-out, not the kid who was raised in a Christian home who kind of rebelled for 4-5 years and came back. But I mean the godless heathen, who has no reference point for a Holy God and has no understanding of the purposes of God is his life, no revelation of the Christ.

Some of you may say, ‘Ah well, we’re dealing with a different thing here, because Canada is a fairly religious country.’ That doesn’t mean anything. You know Great Britain is not a fairly religious country anymore, it’s a fairly heathen country.’ The point is one people can be dead in trespasses and sins, and the other can be dead in religion. When a person’s dead, he’s dead. It doesn’t matter what he died from, you need resurrection life to lift them up. So I don’t hang with this excuse, well we live in a religious/post modern/______ (insert adjective of choice) society so it’s kind of hard to reach the godless heathen because of what’s gone on.

The foolishness of the world is expressed very strongly in the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in Daniel 3:19, where it says the king, to take their lives, heated up the fire seven times hotter. Now fire one times hot will kill you. So how much more dead are you going to be if it’s seven times hot? I mean you can’t be seven times deader? That’s the foolishness of the world.

If it’s dead, it’s dead. If it’s dead we have the answer. Because the whole focus of the Christian gospel is the resurrection life of Christ. Life to the dead. And calling the things that are not as though they are. So let’s get out of the way the excuse, ‘Well, _____ (insert country of choice) kind of different.’ Because wherever I go in the world, it’s always kind of different. Great Britain is kind of different, the Netherlands is kind of different. Singapore is kind of different, ad infinitum. It's death. Let’s get away from some of the stupid excuses we have in our minds, and realize we have somebody, who broke free from death, brought life to the dead, shattered the tomb, and he can do it in Canada, in India, in Indonesia, wherever, it does not matter.

Thank you for your reply, andry. I do find a little humor in your paranthesis.

Echoing a story which Billy Graham has told, in which he had a conversation with the Konrad Adenur, at which one point Adenur asked Graham, "Mr. Graham, do you really believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?" Billy Graham somewhat taken aback by the question said, “Sir, if I did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have no gospel left to preach.” And he said Conrad Adeneur paused, walked over to the end of the room, looked out of the window, at the post-war ruins and said, “Mr. Graham, outside of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I know of no other hope for mankind.” [1]

Francis Schaeffer has argued in The Mark of the Christian as well as Revolutionary Christianity, just to name two, that certain things absolutely must be done--one that I remember well is opening up your home to people. I don't presume to know the audience (or if he had one) in mind, but he did write, "How many of you have had blacks sit and eat at your table?" The principle, I think, can and should be applied to all ethnic groups. Dr. Schaeffer also notes in another book that there was a church (it escapes my mind at the moment) in which had Gentile, Jew, slaves, and Herod's foster brother. The point was that the church must be able to reach across culture.

My church is heavy on missions (that's what I hear)--and I hear that missionaries have cultural training. But how many churches can understand and reach out to the culture that they exist in?

Chuck Colson writes, "If we stand up and say, 'Jesus is the answer', people are going to ask, 'What is the question?'" Colson goes on to say that we have to tell them why their worldview doesn't work.

Hm. In a friend's post he wrote, "Have you heard evangelists say 'you gotta get them lost before they can be saved'? I'm not particularly fond of that, but it helps to make my point."

But there is yet another barrier I might mention. In my discussions with my fellow peers, I find that they do indeed believe in something like relativism. A friend said, "There is no fact." (I admit I was initally stunned--but I guess school smarts does not really equate intelligence! ) The next time he said it, which was a week or so later, I was 'prepared' and asked, "Is that fact?"

He doesn't say it anymore. On another topic, however, which happened to be morals, I demonstrated that relative morals are incoherent. Response? "So what?" So far I have gotten up to showing that the kind of modern thought form they have, unforunately, picked up from television (and internet message boards :rolleyes: ) do not hold to questioning.

Regarding the teens that I know face-to-face, next to none of them take anything religious seriously. Often I hear lines like, "I'm a practical person. So I'm not religious." or "Religion is just so stupid." There is a kind of prejudice formed about religion--so far, no one has answered my question, "What is a religious person?" (If they make mention of ritual, then I would point out that they are discriminating on the basis of religion, and such an observation carries a lot of weight.)

Hm. At any rate, I personally am still lost as to reaching out--except for continuing the process of santification. It think it's a good idea that people can see that religion--Christianity, specifically--is practical.

__________________

I've been posting at an atheist forum for months now and it is so hard to believe that these people even think! Their arguments are irrational and blind. No one can reach people who are wearing blinders unless God opens their eyes. Jesus said; "No one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him." I've seen just how true this is!

'Dr. Zacharias writes, "I have often said the challenge of the truth speaker today is this: How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?"'

Why is this? Because we are entering a post literate age where the average person ingores words and responds to pictures. In the 1400's - pre printing press - religion was something one did. After Luther, religion became something one thought about.

The post literate person doesn't want to think and hasn't been taught to think. Thus the "smoke and bells" denominations are gaining in popularity.

Interesting point, billwald.

This is sort of related:

I take Ancient Civilizations. And when it comes to the religion of the particular civilization, we are told that they worship things like the sun. It is usually said that "we know better now" and henceforth "don't worship the sun". It is also said that, for instance, the Egyptians placed weapons and charms and so forth on or near the mummy because the guy would need it in the next life. It is said that weapons were so that the person could fight in the next life, and food for the journey.

(I beg to differ here. We don't, to my knowledge, place flowers on graves because we think dead people can smell.)

But I bring this up: the picture is painted that all religion began as polytheistic; worship of elements. Why so many gods, it is asked. Well, because they needed an explanation for the things going on around them and obviously they would make up gods to explain them.

This may be a stretch, but I think this is a pretty good basis to think that religion is all 'fabricated', to use a popular adjective. And later, when it is mentioned, "then religions became monotheistic" an even better base is laid to dismiss all monotheistic religions.

__________________