Mark Brumley's "How NOT to Share Your Faith"

[Sirach2]

The difficulty is that so many wish to use the complaint of harshness, etc. to intimidate those whose job it is to teach and preach the truth into avoiding the direct discussion that will cause them moral discomfort.

And when someone else does take up the ball and run with it, however imperfect their presentation, they are castigated for it . . .

We are in a situation wherein the moral and theological error of the culture has infected the Church from the inside.

That takes courage, I know, and we must not only speak the truth ourselves as God calls us, but we must pray for those priests.

Take a peek at all the bolded words. Would you convince me that you are not in complete agreement with the un-named person we spoke about earlier? And who

1. 
   *]spreads the allegations that the clergy are at fault for all the problems in the Church;
   *]believes the Church is infected from the inside;
   *]considers his self-appointment as vital in countering the laxity of the clergy;
   *]lumps all clergy together, castigating them in entirety.
   
   I believe our discussion is ended, for I cannot agree with your perception, but neither will I strive to convince you that it is flawed.

 

[missadeangelis]

Take a peek at all the bolded words. Would you convince me that you are not in complete agreement with the un-named person we spoke about earlier? And who

1. 
   *]spreads the allegations that the clergy are at fault for all the problems in the Church;
   *]believes the Church is infected from the inside;
   *]considers his self-appointment as vital in countering the laxity of the clergy;
   *]lumps all clergy together, castigating them in entirety.
   
   I believe our discussion is ended, for I cannot agree with your perception, but neither will I strive to convince you that it is flawed.

1. 
   Right in line with your own previous comment:
   

   “Someone who judges and snipes at others with loud insulting arrogance, allowing no other train of thought but his, and projecting it as gospel truth”.

   Your summary is not at all what uther was saying from my perspective; However, you’ve “ended” the discussion asserting your absolute correctness, so I won’t strive to convince you of anything either. You’ve defeated your own argument.
   
   mda

 

[Sirach2]

Nice bait, mda. Not biting.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Please stay on topic and if you must go personal, then do so via PM, but be advised that the same Rules apply to PMs as to posts.

 

[uther]

Sirach2,
Is this what is considered how not to share your faith? This is a faithful Catholic priest. Yet he is forceful, direct, orthodox. He minces no words wrt to the current state of affairs. Is that forbidden for him? I’m not sure I understand either.

youtube.com/watch?v=G95wTNGr7Ls&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2,
Is this what is considered how not to share your faith? This is a faithful Catholic priest. Yet he is forceful, direct, orthodox. He minces no words wrt to the current state of affairs. Is that forbidden for him? I’m not sure I understand either.

youtube.com/watch?v=G95wTNGr7Ls&feature=player_embedded#!

To be honest, I do not care for his manner of preaching and avoid him whenever he appears on EWTN.

However, his associate, Fr. Wade Menezes, is wonderful and I always watch for him in order to listen to his homilies on EWTN. Maybe that’s just the difference in our personal tastes, Uther. I do not respond well to forceful preaching.

 

[Church_Militant]

My apologies for the long absence. My wife and were on vacation and have only just returned this past Saturday.

Now on to chapter. 5.

Friendly Fire

"Not distinguishing enemies from allies is the Fifth Deadly Sin of Catholic Apologetics.We are in the middle of a culture war in the West.Many people whose theology we Catholics cannot wholly subscribe to are, nevertheless,on our side in the culture war.

In the grand scheme of things, it is not Catholics vs. Protestants so much as believers vs. unbelievers; absolutists vs. relativists. It is truth vs. error with the old serpent, the Father of Lies, using others to front for him. Consequently, we risk unintentionally shooting an ally (or ourselves in the foot) by always aiming our apologetical firepower so close to home - or, at the other extreme, by shooing at anything that moves on the non-Catholic theological landscape."

 

[Sirach2]

My apologies for the long absence. My wife and were on vacation and have only just returned this past Saturday.

Yes, we missed you! Hope it was wonderful!

It is not Catholics vs. Protestants so much as believers vs. unbelievers; absolutists vs. relativists. It is truth vs. error with the old serpent, the Father of Lies, using others to front for him. Consequently, we risk unintentionally shooting an ally (or ourselves in the foot) by always aiming our apologetical firepower so close to home - or, at the other extreme, by shooing at anything that moves on the non-Catholic theological landscape."

It is so true that I get upset when entering the non-Catholic forum and find the heavy-handed “shooting” by some folks in our own faith. We cannot imagine how bad a witness that is! Some will respond that the non-C’s are just as heavy, but I think we are called to a higher standard, for we have been given so much more. May this chapter speak to our hearts and minds.

Thank you, C.M., for coming back to this thread.

 

[ahs]

Friendly Fire

"Not distinguishing enemies from allies is the Fifth Deadly Sin of Catholic Apologetics.We are in the middle of a culture war in the West.Many people whose theology we Catholics cannot wholly subscribe to are, nevertheless,on our side in the culture war.

In the grand scheme of things, it is not Catholics vs. Protestants so much as believers vs. unbelievers; absolutists vs. relativists. It is truth vs. error with the old serpent, the Father of Lies, using others to front for him. Consequently, we risk unintentionally shooting an ally (or ourselves in the foot) by always aiming our apologetical firepower so close to home - or, at the other extreme, by shooing at anything that moves on the non-Catholic theological landscape…

It is so true that I get upset when entering the non-Catholic forum and find the heavy-handed “shooting” by some folks in our own faith. We cannot imagine how bad a witness that is! Some will respond that the non-C’s are just as heavy, but I think we are called to a higher standard, for we have been given so much more. May this chapter speak to our hearts and minds.

(My apologies for not preserving fonts, etc…I couldn’t tell if I had deleted a bracket or not and knew it would throw the whole bit off. )

YES! And guilty myself a few times. I think it’s important to ask pointed questions when debating a non-Catholic on a specific topic. But it must be done in charity with truth…AND it needs to be part of the debate/discussion topic. The perspective that sunk in the most with me on this chapter reminded me of those moral hot topics that most Christians typically see eye to eye on…at least to some degree…and on the “is there a God” type discussions. If Christians of differing brands happen to be trying to convince a non-Christian on a certain point, and then let themselves get sucked into fighting with one another about their respective specific beliefs (and only one can be “right”) then the non-Christian is not likely to take the Christian view very seriously. We need to be able to find our common ground first and then forward from there…keeping a steady discernment going about when and where a particular issue is appropriate for discussion.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think we all get into this sometimes, and this chapter really can help us work to prevent that.

Mark goes on to say…

It is easier to talk with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but is that where our apologetical focus should be?

Meanwhile, the non-Christians would be ignored. More likely they would also be scandalized by Christians bickering among themselves.

We should not spend all our time and energy arguing with those who know Christ while neglecting those who do not.

 

[Sirach2]

I think we all get into this sometimes, and this chapter really can help us work to prevent that.

Mark goes on to say…

It is easier to talk with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but is that where our apologetical focus should be?

Meanwhile, the non-Christians would be ignored. More likely they would also be scandalized by Christians bickering among themselves.

We should not spend all our time and energy arguing with those who know Christ while neglecting those who do not.

Psst … hey folks, where are those of you who bought the book? I had hoped to read your comments and insights.

Too often, I wear the hat of defender of the faith, wasting my efforts with those who are close-minded, rather than reaching out to those who truly need and ask for help in understanding it.
Lord have mercy!

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah, where are you guys who got this book besides me?

Mark goes on to say:

A Caveat

We must be careful here. Some Catholics do not want Catholics to try to persuade Protestants to become Catholics. “They are already Christians. Why bother with them?” The obvious answer is that Christ wants his followers to have *all *he has revealed (Matthew 28:20), all the means of grace he has made available, and all the guidance his shepherds can provide. If a Catholic believes those things exist fully only in the Catholic Church, it follows that, out of fidelity to Christ, he should try to share them with his Protestant brethren. If he does not, one may question the extent to which he really believes the Catholic Church to be the fullness of Christianity.
…
And when anti-Catholic Fundamentalists proselytize Catholics or when conservative Evangelicals challenge Catholic tenets, Catholic apologists have a right and duty to respond with charity, which includes offering the best arguments for the faith that we can muster.
…
We must, in other words, have the spiritual wherewithal to discern when to do what with whom.

These are important statements because they help us see where we need to discern our own responses.and I will add here Mark’s excellent points from the end of this chapter.

The Bottom Line
Peter Kreeft has called for an ecumenical front of believers (of all sorts) against unbelief and secularism…He means we should unite as far as we can, without compromising our commitment to the truth…In this spiritual battle, we cannot afford casualties lost to friendly fire. (emphasis mine)

 

[1AugustSon7]

In this spiritual battle, we cannot afford casualties lost to friendly fire.

That seems to be the whole thrust of ecumenism. It also helps reduce that aggressive bickering and fighting that is so scandalous to non-Christians.

To be sure, though, apologetics properly speaking is the defense of the faith, which presupposes someone actively challenging it, presumably directly and deliberately. At this point, however, Mark seems almost to be thinking about the indifferent or the apathetic, who don’t typically challenge the faith. For these, prayers would seem to be the only true answer combined with our Christian example.

Evangelization, properly speaking, would seem to be targeted at those who know practically nothing of Christ, but are in a state, condition or at a point in their life (or lives for whole societies or cultures) that begs or cries out for him: a situation that cries out for deliverance from the terrifying forces of darkness and ignorance, and the misery of the slavery of sin.

 

[Church_Militant]

From Chapter 6:

Trying to Win

Frank Sheed the Vince Lombardi of Catholic apologetics if ever there was one, warned Catholic Evidence Guild speakers about gong for “victory”.

The trouble said Sheed, is that when you set out to win in this way, you create problems.You tend to soft pedal the weaknesses of your argument, neglect the strength of the other fellow’s , and, most important, set up barriers for the Holy Spirit in that person’s heart (as well as your own).

As Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say; “Win and argument, lose a soul.” In fact, it is much better to let someone discover the truth for himself than to browbeat him into submission to your case for the truth.

 

[Church_Militant]

That seems to be the whole thrust of ecumenism. It also helps reduce that aggressive bickering and fighting that is so scandalous to non-Christians.

To be sure, though, apologetics properly speaking is the defense of the faith, which presupposes someone actively challenging it, presumably directly and deliberately. At this point, however, Mark seems almost to be thinking about the indifferent or the apathetic, who don’t typically challenge the faith. For these, prayers would seem to be the only true answer combined with our Christian example.

Evangelization, properly speaking, would seem to be targeted at those who know practically nothing of Christ, but are in a state, condition or at a point in their life (or lives for whole societies or cultures) that begs or cries out for him: a situation that cries out for deliverance from the terrifying forces of darkness and ignorance, and the misery of the slavery of sin.

I think that we often forget that apologetics is a part of evangelization, but is not itself evangelistic per se. You can’t effectively pass on what you do not know yourself, and so knowing how to explain the faith is vital to sharing it, but it doesn’t always include defending it, which is the other half of apologetics.

 

[Sirach2]

As Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say; “Win and argument, lose a soul.” In fact, it is much better to let someone discover the truth for himself than to browbeat him into submission to your case for the truth.

I think we humans can sense whenever someone is overly zealous to force their agenda on us… It causes me, and no doubt others, to back into a corner and come out fightin’, even though we may recognize a morsel of truth. :nunchuk: It’s the aggressiveness that spoils it all.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, no one likes to feel cornered, and being of Irish descent means I like it even less, so I do have to climb into the other guy’s shoes pretty regularly. I pray much that I never get so into “winning” that I forget what all this is all about.

 

[PoorKnight]

UGH! This thread just thumped me in the gut!

At least per what I’ve read here, I’m a horrible apologist.

I have a local anti-Catholic radio station in town (and I’m in a fairly small town) run by an ex-Catholic who “knows” Catholicism because he was “raised” Catholic. I know, after two years of e-mails and face to face conversations, that converting him is virtually nill, however, he keep bragging that he has “hundreds of Catholic listeners”.

His recent shows on Catholicism have made me sick and I’d cut off all contact if it were just me, but I feel like then there’d be no one to state truth for the Catholic listeners, like there was no one for me in college to show and tell me what Catholics actually believe.

But… Let’s just sum up by saying, I need to get this book because I think I’ve broken every rule stated here… this week alone. God forgive me!

How should I deal with a situation like I’m in? Should I just walk away and let the Catholic listeners fend for themselves? But that feels like betrayal somehow.

Do I just state what the Church believes and not engage in discussion (if you can call getting called a “wafer worshiper”, “papist” etc a “discussion”)?

How do we get past the extreme anti-Catholic stuff (you’re not Christian, you’re a “wafer worshiper” etc) into a meaningful discussion… online? Is that even possible?

Are we mostly doing our apologetics online for the “lurkers” or the person we’re actually engaging?

I have so many questions on how to do this right. I really just want to be a tool for Christ and His Church. Any advise would be great.

I have at least a basic handle on the what… I really need to work on the how…

Thank you and God bless

 

[Church_Militant]

Gee…after all these months this thread gets resurrected? Wow!

Well, my good Knight, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. We all make mistakes.

In your case with the radio guy, the only way to approach it is to calmly and rationally show from facts that what he attacks is wrong. This damages his credibility far more than any debate or emotional comments.

If he says that we worship Mary…use authentic and authoritative church documents to show what we really believe, that we venerate her, but never ever have or will adore her.

Same with Purgatory or any other topic he brings up. The Church has many documents that clarify her teachings, and when they don’t agree with his propaganda, that takes the wind out of his sails of him supposedly “knowing” about Catholicism. Rational people will begin to turn him off because he has been proven wrong with simple facts, by an ordinary Catholic.

You might take a look at some of the counter a-C articles on my blog which show how I’ve approached some guys we hear about from time to time. Here’s the links…

• Response to Hard Questions to Ask Good Catholics (By Mike Gendron)
• Refuting anti-Catholic tract: “Rome vs The Bible” by Mike Gendron
• Refuting: “Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?”
• Refuting Mike Gendron’s attacks on Eucharistic Adoration
• Refuting Mike Gendron’s tract “Are You Being Deceived?”
• Mike Gendron doesn’t like me. (Glory be to God!!!)
• Refuting Mike Gendron’s ‘Another Jesus?”
• The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?
• For those who believe Jack T. Chick knows what he’s talkin’ about.
• Mike (Gendron’s) Observations of the First Jesuit Pope: Refuted
• Jason Hauser.'s latest attack: “A Humble Pope?”

It’s hard when someone like your guy there goes public like that with all that misinformation, but the key is to never ever stoop to his level and to use calm facts to show that he’s not telling the truth, even if he believes he is.

BTW, I still highly recommend this book to one and all because it really does help.

 

[Sirach2]

Somehow, I get the feeling scanning your links that you don’t like Mike Gendron.

Nice to see your thread resurrected, C.M.