Telly-vangelism

Here's something else I've been thinking about for a while (I realise I've been asking questions without really suggesting answers. I guess that's the way my brain tends to work). Over on Peter's blog he recommends some resources by Ted Turnau on using films in evangelism. I've only skimmed it, but it looks good, as does his website.

One phrase in particular stood out for me though: "Let’s face it: movies are this generation’s literature." And I guess I agree - a lot of people will sit down and watch a movie who wouldn't sit down and read the book. And movies can engage with big ideas and challenge people just like a good novel will. This can make them a great tool for explaining the gospel to people.

But I wonder how many people would naturally watch a film in that way. I was taught to do it by Andy Shudall when I was a Relay worker. Before then, I would just watch a film without really thinking. I guess they may have shaped my attitudes a bit without me realising it, but I'm dubious how much. And when I think of a lot of my friends and family, I'm not sure they'd be much different.

I think a much more powerful force in shaping culture and worldviews is TV. I think it's sort of seen as a poorer relation of the movies, but think about it. It's there in most people's homes all the time. It plays a huge role in shaping how we view the world (whether via news, documentaries or chat shows). It passes on moral values (which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the whole point of Loose Women). In particular, I think soaps are massively influential. Regular viewers get to know the characters. They may like them or loathe them, but they care about what happens. And I reckon values portrayed in shows like these will be absorbed much more easily than if they are surrounded by Hollywood razamattaz.

So how would this shape the way we communicate the gospel? Good question. I think I'll have to think about it a bit more...

Red Letter Apologetics

I've been preparing this seminar on "Answering Tough Questions" for a UCCF South East training day, and I've been pondering something. A few people I know have bought new Bibles recently (I think there was a special offer at New Word Alive), and they have an interesting feature - the words of Jesus are in red. Nothing new there - people have been doing it for years.

The problem is, I believe that the whole of the Bible is God's word - whether it's the words of Jesus or a list of names and numbers. Apparently, there's a movement among Christians which seeks to get back to the 'important bits' - the words of Jesus, the bits in red. They call themselves 'Red-letter' Christians (which set me off on an amusing train of thought - what if they'd marked the words of Jesus in a different way - would we have had 'green letter' Christians, or 'italic Christians'? Anyway...). If the whole of the Bible is God's Word, this is a bit daft. I get the point, but it sends all kinds of wrong messages. Go and read what Dave has to say about it.

But in my seminar, one of the pieces of advice I intend to give is - if you can, use the actual words of Jesus. This sounds a bit dodge to start with, and I started to get a bit nervous about it. But the more I've thought about it, the more I agree (with myself). There are some good reasons for it...

When we answer people's questions, we aren't just trying to shut them up - we want them to meet Jesus. We can only do that if we talk about him. Using his words and actions is the best way to introduce people to the real Jesus.

When we use the words of Jesus, any issues are immediately between them and Jesus. Nick Pollard says he wants to spend as much time as possible talking about Jesus, so he tries to go straight to something Jesus said or did and works out from there.

In the 'climate' the students are living in, where a distrust of authority and propositional truth comes as standard, I think engaging with a real person is helpful. Also, the story-telling approach sits well with this sort of attitude.

There are some Christians who distrust 'traditional' ways of doing evangelism and dealing with people's questions. Like the red-letter chaps, they think there's a better way of doing things by getting back to what Jesus said. Surely it's helpful if we can show that they aren't exclusive.

I'm sure there are more reasons - they're the ones which come to mind. Obviously I'm NOT saying only use the specific words of Jesus (bad idea). But I am going to be telling the CU peeps to try hard to get their friends to engage with Jesus when they're answering tough questions.

Which is good, because I've already printed the handouts...