The Road to Find Out

[featheredprop]

Recently I got caught up on this year's "The Road to Find Out" broadcasts. I thought I'd share a few reflections...

Generally speaking, I enjoy a spirited debate. When two knowledgeable people defend their positions publicly, I have often found it to be a good learning experience. The Staples-Gregg and White-Gregg debates are good examples. Even on "The Narrow Path" one can occasionally hear an argument well-formulated by a caller. (Does anyone remember a few years back when 9-10 year old girl took on Steve with her dispensationalism? She was a real pistol!).

Anyway ...."The Road to Find Out" leaves me with a different taste in my mouth (not bad - just different). There is plenty of clashing of world views there, but the "clashing" is of another sort - one that sometimes leaves me a little perplexed.

I've listened to numerous calls being made with challenges to Christianity. These challenges are met again and again with good, sound answers. Yet, the given answer doesn't seem to impact the caller in the least. They will often skip right over the answer, only to sound the question again. And, again, the reasonable answer is given; and again, it is not heard.

Or, I have heard very reasonable questions being asked of the caller's world view. These aren't malicious questions; just questions that anyone might ask (like: how can I know what you are saying is true?). And just like the sound answer given in response to a challenge to Christianity, the question asked of the caller is either avoided, or not even understood!

Now, in all fairness, I understand that most of the callers who call Steve on TRTFO aren't professional theologians or apologetic thinkers. But one might think that they could still process basic questions and responses (please don't think that I am trying to be mean-spirited). And that has me perplexed.

As I was thinking about this today, I remembered that we do not wrestle with flesh and blood. On TRTFO, I think we find this principle being displayed quite tangibly.

peace,

dane

[steve]

Hi Dane,

I have noticed and been perplexed by the same phenomenon. It seems that the average person does not know how to think clearly about his own belefs (this may be true of many Christians, as well—though I do not encourage them to call that show). I have decided that the principal benefit of The Road to Find Out may not be to my on-air discussion partners, but to listeners, some of whom may observe the same things we are observing. While it is frustrating not to have an articulate opponent on the program, I suppose the merits of our position may come across nonetheless (though I think those merits come across even better when the opponent is more impressive).

As you know, my friend "Michael the Buddhist" has called every show thus far (I didn't take his call on one of the shows because there were abundant other callers). I sometimes think the show should be called "The Steve and Michael Show." Michael is slow of speech, but intelligent. He does tend to raise the same points repeatedly, and the answers seem to go like water off a duck's back, but his questions are well-thought-out, and may reflect the questions in the minds of other listeners who do not call. I look forward to having a larger number of unbelievers calling the show (Michael was my only caller last Sunday!). I assume that, if I stay on the air long enough, I may accumulate more regulars.

I don't know if it is just that people don't listen to talk radio on Sunday evenings, or if non-Christians wish deliberately to boycott a Christian show, or if there is some other explanation. I have thought about inviting some religious leaders from other faiths, or challenging some professors from UCSC to call in. My problem is that I am spread too thin and do not have any staff. Running three entirely different radio programs leaves little time for organizing.

[featheredprop]

Hey Steve,

You have repeatedly stated your goals with TRTFO - that is to have dialogue with those who hold to different world views than yours so that you might understand those views better. As you've said many times; perhaps a caller is able to provide a clearer understanding of ultimate truth than what you currently espouse. I must continue to listen to the show through .... errr ... those lenses (if I may mix analogies).

I have been listening to Michael the Buddhist call for years now. I think I know him about as well as anyone would who listens frequently. He is not argumentative, seems sincere, and has raised intelligent questions. I will admit, however, that at times I feel that same sense of perplexity in his calls. You've met his arguments with reasonable responses, yet those responses not only fail to impact him, but he raises nearly the same question on the next call! In my opinion (and I could be horribly wrong), Michael strikes me as one who has already committed himself to unbelief, and is seeking to justify that position by his arguments. I don't think he is as open-minded as he believes he might be.

Recently, someone criticized you for entertaining his calls. I understood their frustration. But, I agree with you that there is value in speaking with him - if not for Michael, (though I pray that that is not the case) then for the benefit of listeners who are working through these issues themselves.

In any event, I believe that TRTFO is edifying - just sometimes in a strange way.

peace,

dane

[Joan]

Steve and Dane,

I've been able to listen three times, so far. I can't help puzzling over the same thing: how can such well-reasoned responses go so completely unheard by callers? I've come to the same conclusion you suggest, that maybe it's for the sake of other listeners that TR2FO is on the air.

I could easily imagine a listener being interested in the subject, yet refraining from entering the on-air discussion. He may not have thought well-enough through his position to vocalize it - or even if he has, he may feel inadequate to defend it. It could be like me, listening to a discussion on rocket science. Though interested enough to listen, I'd shy away from a discussion with the speaker, aware that I could never get onto the playing field of the scientist who introduced the topic. Better to just listen and think.

But Steve, what if you were to mix up your programs by sometimes inviting guests, other times introducing smaller pieces of the God-question? You could bring up specific topics such as, "Do we have a responsibility for our children's spiritual education or is it better to let them decide for themselves?'" "Do you believe in heaven? Hell?" "Can Hinduism and Christianity both be true?" "What do you want to have done with your life by the time you die?" "Does life has a purpose?" Or, "Do babies go to heaven? Why?" It seems to me that a listener could be drawn into these smaller, less intimidating topics; it seems to me that once engaged, they could be gently and respectfully led to consider what Scripture has to say on the matter.

Regardless of how it seems to go, I'm glad TR2FO is on the air.
How will they believe, unless they have heard...?

Joan

[brody196]

I love TRTFO and am thankful for it, but must admit that I often shake my head when Micheal the Buddhist is announced as the next caller...No disrespect to Micheal, as he seems very sincere...But his objections have been answered very thoroughly and yet he still asks the same stuff over and over.

[Joan]

I wonder if Michael isn't calling out of friendship, wanting to help Steve fill in the time when the lines are wide open?

[steve]

Maybe sometimes, but he calls every week, even when I mention we have numerous calls waiting.