Need Some Advice On How To Respond To Evangelical Teacher's Email

[R. S. Martin]

I'm really hesitant to raise another item from my school experience...thought I'd put that behind me. But this evangelical professor contacted me and started an email discussion that I'm not sure how to handle.

 

I'll copy key pieces of the emails here and trust he's too busy to find it:

May 2

HIM: You mentioned briefly that you might want to get together to discuss [author's name] book. If you would still like to do that I am available after the 2nd week of June.

 

[This took me by surprise. I didn't know I was asking for a meeting. Just an email discussion. See my reply to him.]

ME: As for meeting to discuss [author]. I had written up an email to discuss the book. But then I realized that I might not want to get involved in a heavy discussion in the week before the oral so I saved it for later, in case you want to see it. I'm basically saying that critical realism provides me with better vocabulary to explain why I don't think God exists....So yeah, I'll meet with you if you want to but I'm not much good at spoken discussions...Let me know if you want to meet, and what day works for you.

May 3

 

HIM: My background is quite different from yours. I was raised in a very conservative home but with the freedom to chart my own path. However, we are all complex people and the spiritual journey is a complex one. Like you I had to come to academia to find the language to understand my own spirituality. That said, I have met people with a profound spiritual life that have a faith that is based on a much simpler understanding of Christianity.

 

I don't think the journey to or from faith is exclusively an intellectual one. It also has a lot to do with community, temperament, experience and context. As such I think that conversations about issues related to religion should be more organic. That is, my objective in talking with you is not to defend God and the Bible but to encourage other ways of seeing. Perhaps this is an artifact of my work as a teacher.

 

If this is of value to you perhaps we could meet for coffee on June 12 or 13? Alternatively, since your program is done I could bring my wife. Whatever works for you.

 

Let me know

 

[i'm not sure if it's decent posting this much of his email but it does not include any identifying details so I think it should be okay. I think it shows his philosophy and attitude. I'm really new to evangelical thought and don't really know what he's saying by all of this. Possibly some of you know. He does not refer to the email so I guess he is not interested in seeing it. It seems like he really sincerely cares about me. However, I feel scared off by his term "encourage other ways of seeing." I think maybe that means he intends to evangelize me. He is, after all, evangelical and I understand evangelicals cannot not evangelize. I let it go a day but he requests a reply. Since we're in the process of planning a meeting I really do have to respond.]

 

May 4

ME: You said:

 

<That is, my objective in talking with you is not to defend God and the Bible but to encourage other ways of seeing. Perhaps this is an artifact of my work as a teacher.

 

If this is of value to you perhaps we could meet for coffee on June 12 or 13?>

 

Sorry, but that would not be of value to me. We should probably cancel plans for a meeting. Thank you for your contributions to my paper. I wish you and yours well.

 

HIM: I did not mean to offend you. My goal in most academic conversations is to learn and to explain (whether I am talking to colleagues or students).

 

I do wish you well in your life journey.

 

Take care

 

*************************************

He has a website in his email signature. I looked it up and found a faith statement. Straightforward, thorough-going, pure fundamentalism in my opinion.

My question is how, or whether, to respond to that. I realize the final decision is my own but ideas might be helpful. I don't like to let him feel hurt for offending me because I never felt offended. I am confused about a few other items:

 

1. Why does he call it an "academic" discussion when he said he wanted to help me see religion differently? Did I misread his email? He has seen my reasoned argument for atheism in my paper.
   
2. In the other email he said he wants to "encourage me to see things differently." In this one he talks about "explaining." If he explains what he believes and why is one thing. If he encourages me to see it the same way (agree with him) is a very different thing. Why does he change the wording here?
   

I think he has settled for the "hurt Christian" syndrome and that if I reply I will only complicate matters and get myself into a tangle I can't get out of without hurting someone's feelings even more. On the other hand, I feel guilty for letting him feel hurt for offending me when I never felt offended. Is all of this a trick to get me to let him evangelize me?

[florduh]

Hey Ruby!

 

Long time no chat.

 

As far as the e-mail exchange with the Evangelical, well, I'd let it go.

 

You did ask for opinions, and your ties to the academic world seem to be holding you back from moving on to a real life.

 

Please let go, once and for all. I hate to see you squirming on their hook.

 

Best to you as always,

 

- Chris

[Mongo]

I suspect your interpretation of his intentions is correct.

 

Could it be that he has been wearing a "Professor hat" up until now and has felt there were lines of discussion that he he could not cross (for professional reasons) but would like to open up a new line of discussion in June?

 

I'm not sure what, of a religious nature, that he would be supressing unless his core beliefs are not acceptable for discussion/instruction in the classroom/office.

 

At this point as you pass from one life direction to (I assume) another, you may consider whether this individual would be able to provide a good recommendation for your and how you deal with that.

 

YOu could simply reply with...

 

"Oh no, I wasn't offended but thanks for your concern.

 

May your journey be enlightening as well."

 

I guess that's the pragmatist in me emerging.

 

Mongo

[Neon Genesis]

The whole "I'm not trying to convert but to "educate" and I just want you to see things different" sounds suspicious to me, too. It reminds me of Christians who come to this site claiming that they're here to "get to know us and explain their beliefs" yet at the same time hoping "to see what bounces back." It's their sneaky way of saying they want to evangelize to you but they don't have the guts to admit it up front, so they do it under the guise of "learning." It's also suspicious to me that he claims to just want to learn but at the same time he wants to "explain" a different way of seeing things to you, yet he doesn't seem nearly as interested in learning your way of seeing things with his comments about "encouraging." So, I agree it's probably best to just let it go. If he wants to feel hurt when you didn't do anything at all to hurt him, then that's his problem to deal with, not yours.

[L.B.]

As with any conversation, do not be trapped into having to answer they way you imagine would keep him happy. Answer honestly, firmly and decisively. My best to you, friend.

[Robbobrob]

I don't think the journey to or from faith is exclusively an intellectual one.

As Joseph Campbell repeats throughout his books on religion and myth, the spiritual journey is a psychological one, not a physical or intellectual one. It is why facts are not needed for belief. It fulfills an emotional need to comfort. Literalists try to make religion/myth do far more than it is supposed to. Ruins the point, really.

[white_raven23]

I think he has settled for the "hurt Christian" syndrome and that if I reply I will only complicate matters and get myself into a tangle I can't get out of without hurting someone's feelings even more. On the other hand, I feel guilty for letting him feel hurt for offending me when I never felt offended. Is all of this a trick to get me to let him evangelize me?

 

Short answer: Yes.

The "offended" thing was just a baited hook to keep you e-mailing.

 

I can't remember what the practice is called...it is called something, but it's a common con tactic.

Basically...they are taking advantage of human nature. They make a tiny negative assumption (they don't have to really believe it's true), and people will go to great lengths to prove the assumption wrong.

 

Example (financial scam): "This is a potentially lucrative investment, but it's not for the timid. You look more like the type of person who really likes to play it safe with your money."

 

All the mark really hears is this person calling them timid. To prove the assumption wrong, they will enter into the lucrative investment.

 

Best response to this professor? No response at all. Any response on your part is going to be turned back on you...given enough time, he'll pull out "I really think God is speaking to your heart seeing as you keep talking to me." Suddenly making YOU responsible for the continued discourse.

[R. S. Martin]

White Raven, that is EXACTLY my feeling. I have now deleted the entire series of emails from my inbox so the temptation will not be so great to reply. The whole thing just had the "smell" of an evangelist's baited hook, right from the get-go. Just wanted to check with other more experienced people to be sure I'm not imagining stuff. Thanks for all your replies.

[R. S. Martin]

Hey Ruby!

 

Long time no chat.

 

Yeah, I spent some time setting my own sandbox in order. It's about a year that I set it up and there's more than five hundred posts there, many of them written by me. We could use a bit more variety over there, actually. The link is in my sig.

 

To give credit where credit is due, Ex-COG from these forums has contributed quite a bit, as also has a Christian from out of cyberspace.

[Amethyst]

Why does he call it an "academic" discussion when he said he wanted to help me see religion differently? Did I misread his email? He has seen my reasoned argument for atheism in my paper.

 

I think he was trying not to clue you in that he was really trying to evangelize, because he probably knew that would turn you off.

 

In the other email he said he wants to "encourage me to see things differently." In this one he talks about "explaining." If he explains what he believes and why is one thing. If he encourages me to see it the same way (agree with him) is a very different thing. Why does he change the wording here?

 

I think this is also code for evangelizing. I don't think the wording matters.

 

I think he has settled for the "hurt Christian" syndrome and that if I reply I will only complicate matters and get myself into a tangle I can't get out of without hurting someone's feelings even more. On the other hand, I feel guilty for letting him feel hurt for offending me when I never felt offended. Is all of this a trick to get me to let him evangelize me?

 

I definitely smell a trick.

[Piprus]

It's a trap, Ruby. Thinly disguised though it may be. Walk around it and move on. You don't need to enmesh yourself in that stuff now, you've come so far. Move on.

[R. S. Martin]

It's a trap, Ruby. Thinly disguised though it may be. Walk around it and move on. You don't need to enmesh yourself in that stuff now, you've come so far. Move on.

 

Yeah! I can hardly believe it. No more playing Christian politics. And "thinly disguised" is right.

 

Amethyst, this is why I need this place. Your analysis is so helpful. Had I not been on these forums all this time and seen all the other stories and strategies in other people's lives, I might not have recognized this for what it was.

 

I don't think the journey to or from faith is exclusively an intellectual one.

As Joseph Campbell repeats throughout his books on religion and myth, the spiritual journey is a psychological one, not a physical or intellectual one. It is why facts are not needed for belief. It fulfills an emotional need to comfort. Literalists try to make religion/myth do far more than it is supposed to. Ruins the point, really.

 

Well, yes! But not the psychology of Paul. Sacrifice--whether animal, human, or god--does not heal the conscience. Refusing or failing to retain God in one's mind does not make people reprobate as Paul insists in Rom. 1.