There’s this idea that has been popping up in the comments of various articles critiquing modernity, that the dual vices of modernity are irrationality and distraction.
The core concept at play here is conversion. I approach this idea without arriving at it in my previous Apologetical Skeleton Key: Conversion is when someone makes a definite, positive declaration of some truth, and do so with full knowledge and consent of the will. Before someone is converted, they are neutral. It is rather like magnetism. Raw iron requires some input to take on magnetic properties–magnetism must be applied to it.
This is how we get “Catholics in Name Only”–most people are not challenged to make positive declarations of faith, even among Catholics. People are born Catholic, raised with or without a religious education, go through the motions– they are lukewarm. They haven’t woken up to their own inclinations, they haven’t made a positive declaration of faith.
When people haven’t made a positive declaration of faith, they structure their lives around what they passively believe to be true. They have good intentions, so they want believe they are meritorious of whatever passes for their idea of Heaven. After all, if you think you are in the clear, you won’t be motivated to change anything. The first Skeleton Key gets at this point: they will reject ideas that attack their idea of eternal paradise, whatever it is.
Another way of thinking about why people reject attacks on their idea of Heaven is that they don’t like thinking that it is possible to run afoul of the rules, even their own rules. This is the first vice of modernity: irrationality. Unconverted hearts and minds–the masses of lukewarm–will not follow their beliefs to their conclusion with reason, with rationality.
And why would they? The aspiring Apologist ought to recognize that their minds will reject such attacks like the body attacks a virus. The aspiring apologist will likely be frustrated, because if we don’t talk to people how will we convert them?
We have to understand the reason why people don’t just passively come around to truth. The reason is the second vice of modernity: distraction. People don’t want to be irrational, no one wakes up in the morning and decides to accept phony beliefs. People tend to sincerely have good intentions and a desire to do and be good. The reason they don’t think too hard about it is because they also keep themselves distracted. Technology facilitates this: How many people keep screens in front of their face, keep wireless headphones in their ears, devote their lives to work, devote their nights to partying, devote their efforts to material satisfaction. These things take a lot of work. God doesn’t compete for air-time, if you aren’t listening you won’t hear what He has to say. If He really wants your attention he will demand it and will get it whether you like it or not. I don’t know if I’ve talked about my conversion experience overmuch but maybe I ought to try sometime–let me just say that God turned my life upside down and I had to learn that I needed His help because I couldn’t help myself. It is through silence that our brains start to think about things, that our conscience begins to stretch and wake up, that God begins to whisper to us.
This is a very, very uncomfortable experience for people who are not used to it. If your mind is anything like mine, it is also difficult. The discomfort and difficulty make it easier to stay distracted than to try to carve out some silence.
The aspiring apologist, in understanding this, can take an approach of pacing and leading. First, recognize whether an interlocutor is lukewarm or converted. Someone who is converted against God will require a different strategy, I might write about that later. Someone who is lukewarm cannot accept information they are not prepared to accept, so to pace them the apologist must attempt to try to see the world from their point of view, and understand how they see things. Then, to lead them to Christ, the apologist must not aggressively assert truths, but ask probing questions.
The example that came up in the comments somewhere was abortion. The consequence of abortion being the murder of human persons is that the abortion advocate has supported and encouraged the perpetuation of the biggest mass murder in human history. That is a heavy burden to lay on someone’s shoulders. A simple way to try and lead them away is to ask, “What if that is actually a person?” and see how they respond. Their irrationality will reject that abortion is murder because they have good intentions and don’t want to lose their idea of heaven. Their distraction means they maybe have never thought about the fact that abortion is murder, or have never thought that “clumps of embryonic cells” are people.
The other way the apologist can pace and lead is by maintaining a good relationship with someone, so that if and when God turns their lives upside down, you can be there with the light of Christ and help them navigate the stormy seas.
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 