A word to teachers, pastors, and other public speakers: Don’t try to sound like anyone but the best version of yourself. If you sound radically different on stage than you would over a cup of coffee, it is distracting and sounds glaringly inauthentic to those listening. When you develop and strengthen your own voice, you are better able to keep yourself from obscuring your message.
Annually around Easter, something surfaces (or resurfaces) in popular culture that claims to undermine the historicity of the Gospel. This year, a document suggesting that Jesus had a wife has made the rounds (which you can learn about here). Should we panic, especially since a few scholars are claiming that this is no forgery?
While we can respond to this in many ways, one immediately obvious factor that should be key in our evaluation is the date. In the Huffington Post article, it is acknowledged that this “fragment dates back to at least the sixth to ninth centuries.” While this dating estimate is written as though it helps the case, the date actually undermines the weight of the document. When we have strong evidence that the Bible was composed in the first century, and many of our New Testament manuscript fragments date back to the second century (and possibly even the late first), this new document is no threat whatsoever.
**Update (as of May 5, 2014): This is now generally considered to be a forgery. Another attack bites the dust. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/gospel-jesuss-wife-looks-more-more-fake-n97281
For those interested, here is the outline I handed out at my EMNR/ISCA conference workshop this morning.
Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Contemporary Apologetics Renaissance
Or: A Word of Exhortation to 21st Century Apologists
*Adapted from an in-progress essay
I. Surveying the Apologetics Landscape in 2014
A. Annual conferences
B. Ratio Christi
C. Apologetics degree programs
D. Social Media groups such as the Christian Apologetics Alliance
E. Success of movie, God’s Not Dead
F. Increased respectability of Christianity in the discipline of philosophy
II. Why Critique Ourselves?
A. Tribe of Issachar (1 Chronicles 12:32)
–> They understood the times and knew what Israel should do.
B. Let us never praise new movements—even ones we like— without asking what we may lose in the wake
C. We must seek a standard of objective excellence in all we say and do
–> See Matt.12:36-37; James 3:1-12
A. Beware of cultivated obsolescence
1. We cultivate our own obsolescence whenever we speak, write, or act in way that encourages other people to stop listening to us.
2. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in disclosing what is on his mind. (Prov.18:2)
3. When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable,
But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Prov. 10:19)
B. Guard against stylistic homogeneity
1. When all we do is talk to each other, we begin to sound like each other
2. We each need to pursue our unique callings in our own corners of the Kingdom
3. If we only read each other’s books, articles, Facebook posts, and blogs, then we end up not only recycling each other’s points, but also spreading each other’s errors.
C. Flee from flashiness over solid content
1. Pretty PowerPoint graphics cannot save you from inadequate preparation
2. Be teachers, not mere presenters
3. You can “charm” away you ethos: Do not distract from your message with your personality
D. Do not neglect discipleship
1. Possible over-emphasis on conversion
a. Arguments are sometimes inappropriate
b. The success of the argument is not everything
c. The Holy Spirit will work in his own way, in his own time
d. Dare to befriend a non-believer, and love him or her regardless of apparent interest in converting
2. Possible over-emphasis on either the intellect or the character at the expense of the other:
I assure you, so far as the university is concerned, I have no patience with piety alone—I want the most rigorous intellectual training, I want the perfection of the mind; equally, I have no patience with reason—I want the salvation of the soul, I want the fear of the Lord… (Charles Malik, “The Two Tasks,” 1980 address, transcript found in The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar, eds. William Lane Craig and Paul M. Gould)
3. A healthy church where inter-generational discipleship thrives should be a priority. One suggestion: Revive adult education in hermeneutics, philosophy, theology, and apologetics. This strengthens hearts and minds. (Do not buy into the lie that “millennials” have different needs. We need to live around and with non-millennials to mature.)
E. Resist the temptation to pontificate beyond our competency
F. Do not favor the “viral” over the classic
G. Fight against the pressure to respond speedily
H. Avoid turning well-known philosophers and apologists into celebrities
1. If famous apologist X says “Y,” “Y” may not be correct or wise. They are fallible humans, too.
2. Do your own thinking, using these souls as your intellectual mentors, not as the providers of your script.
I. Do not develop an adversarial posture toward nonbelievers
J. While the apologetics movement is growing, there is still much to be done.
Therefore, if evangelization is the most important task, the task that comes immediately after it—not in tenth place, nor even in third place, but in second place—is not politics, nor economics, nor the quest for comfort and security and ease, but to find out exactly what is happening to the mind and the spirit in the schools and universities. And once the Christian discovers that there is a total divorce between mind and spirit in the schools and universities, between the perfection of thought and the perfection of soul and character, between intellectual sophistication and the spiritual worth of the individual human person, between reason and faith, between the pride of knowledge and the contrition of heart consequent upon being a mere creature and once he realizes that Jesus Christ will find himself less at home on the campuses of the great universities in Europe and America than almost anywhere else, he will be profoundly disturbed, and he will inquire what can be done to recapture the great universities for Jesus Christ, the universities which would not have come into being in the first place without him. – Charles Malik (“The Two Tasks,” 1980)
A. We have a greater platform than ever before thanks to the work of those who have paved the way
B. If we carry on at this rate, next generation of Christians will be more prepared to defend the faith than ever before.
C. Learn to listen well
1. The best apologists are prophetic when the need arises. Prophets must be listeners in order to understand the times.
2. Listen to popular culture
3. Listen to the academy
4. Listen to individuals right in front of you
5. Listen to the Church
D. Upgrade your core beliefs into knowledge (justified, true belief). Use whatever knowledge you have, and never stop studying
E. Seek faithfulness over effectiveness
“Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.”
1 Cor. 4:2
F. Do not fear! The truth will prevail, and God is in control.
Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1978).
William Lane Craig and Paul M. Gould, eds., The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007).
Andreas Kostenberger, Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011).
Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2001).
N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York: HarperOne, 2010).
I am excited to be giving a workshop at this conference (April 4-5, at Calvary Chapel South Denver), which includes Douglas Groothuis, Winfried Corduan, John Stonestreet, and Norman Geisler. My talk has just been scheduled for 9am on Saturday, and the title of the workshop is Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Contemporary Apologetics Renaissance.
Guided by a paper I have been writing this spring, I plan to walk the session attendees through the contemporary landscape of the Christian apologetics movement by discussing the key areas where apologetics is increasing in prominence (social media, Hollywood, college campuses, etc.). Then, I will discuss the benefits and challenges Christian apologists face in each of these areas. Finally, I will offer suggestions for developing and maintaining a standard of biblical excellence in the midst of apologetics’s newly elevated platform. The goal is to challenge the apologetics community to evaluate our recent successes and shortcomings in order to increase our faithfulness to God and our effectiveness for His Kingdom. A time for discussion will follow.
The discipline of Christian apologetics is undergoing a renaissance. Apologetics clubs such as Ratio Christi are springing up on college campuses across the United States. Annual worldview and apologetics conferences are increasing in number, as are apologetics college and graduate degree programs. The defense of the Christian faith has even hit Hollywood with an apologetics-themed movie, God is Not Dead, playing in mainstream theaters. Debates over the existence of God spread like wildfire through social media, exciting and electrifying Christians who watch together and discuss the event afterward. Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland are household names among the swelling ranks of apologetics enthusiasts. While it may seem obvious that the growing popularity of apologetics holds enormous potential to advance the Kingdom of God through persuasion, potential dangers also lurk. This newly accelerated movement incubates temptations such as Christian celebrity-worship, insensitive argumentation, relational atrophy due to over-use of social media, seeking academic shortcuts, and fostering an adversarial disposition toward non-believers. The broader our reach, the farther the Gospel can travel. But on the other hand, the broader our reach, the more souls we can harm. The stakes are too high not to be on our guard against the dangers within this simultaneously encouraging apologetics resurgence.
A friend of mine and budding scholar, Ben Crenshaw, gives an outstanding explanation of the nature of truth. I highly recommend this little essay.
The secular philosophy textbook from which I teach Intro classes proclaims that philosophy exercises rational autonomy. “You need to learn to think critically; think for yourself,” nascent philosophers are often told. Some think that this embrace of autonomy is a locus of conflict between philosophy and Christianity. Christians believe that we are created by God, redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus, and we now belong to him rather than to the darkness. We are not our own; we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). Is Christian faith not then the very antithesis of autonomous reason? If philosophy is, in essence, an exercise in autonomous reason, but the Christian worldview proclaims that we are not autonomous, then how could Christians, in good conscience, be philosophers?
When reading Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics literature, it is common to see warnings against or critiques of autonomous reason. Some of the most extraordinary minds in recent memory caution against such independent cognition. For example, in his relatively new and brilliant The Doctrine of God, John Frame argues:
And in fact nothing at all can be validated from autonomous reason…such reasoning leads to a rationalist-irrationalist dialectic, which destroys all knowledge. For that pottage, much of the church has forsaken its birthright, God’s personal word (20).***
Although he draws a very different conclusion, James K.A. Smith also warns against autonomous reason (Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, 65). In these sorts of appraisals, autonomous reason is usually understood to mean that the reasoner is operating without consideration for God’s revelation. Human reason, for the rationally autonomous, is assumed to function just fine without appealing to God or to his Word. Because thoughts about God are largely absent from this person’s cognitive processes, the thinker is said to place reason metaphysically prior to God. In other words, the rationally autonomous individual assumes that he or she is more important, or central, than God. To help clarify this concept of metaphysical priority, we can think of the relationship between a ship and a ship-builder. If a ship is to have any success at sea, the ship-builder needs to have carefully built it to be buoyant and watertight. Furthermore, the ship owes not just its seafaring success, but its very existence to the ship-builder. Therefore, the ship-builder is metaphysically prior to the ship. The ship-builder must exist before the ship can exist. Since God is our creator, he is metaphysically prior and more centrally important than we are.
If rational autonomy entails a denial of the centrality of God, then the intellectually autonomous individual is doing something just as absurd as if a ship (if it could do such a thing) were to claim that it could have built or repaired itself without a ship-builder. When God is either not present or not needed, human reason is seen as the ultimate authority. In opposition to this brazen, secular approach, the comparatively pious alternative must be something like reason that consciously recognizes and submits to divine revelation.
But something is quite wrong with this discussion. A thinker can be rationally autonomous in two important senses. The first sense is metaphysical. An individual who was created by God can nevertheless deny this truth and live as though his or her reason reigns supreme in the universe. So, this person holds that he or she has ultimate autonomy. The second sense is epistemological; it relates to how humans come to know. It is a claim to functional, or local autonomy. To understand the difference, consider two individuals, who both were created by God: Person A, who acknowledges this truth, and Person B, who denies this truth. Person A and Person B can each draw the same conclusion about a given math problem, using the same reasoning processes independently. Person A did not have to invoke or even think about God to do so, and person B did not go off the cognitive rails due to failure to acknowledge his metaphysical dependency on God. It seems that both Persons A and B engaged in what could be termed functionally autonomous reasoning. I call this epistemic autonomy. In other words, both individuals simply thought for themselves, without the aid of any other human or without appealing to God. At no point did either person need to contemplate her own origin, or determine to whom she owes her ability to solve math problems. The autonomy in this case is not necessarily autonomy from God, but is certainly autonomy from other people. It is simply independent thinking. An exercise in epistemic autonomy does not equal or entail an exercise in metaphysical autonomy.
So, complaints about “rational autonomy” or “autonomous reason” tend to conflate two vitally distinct issues, metaphysical and epistemic autonomy. Metaphysical autonomy is simply untrue, given the case for God’s existence. We do owe our existence and ability to function to our Creator. Not even the most Enlightenment-friendly theist would adhere to metaphysical autonomy, because it makes no sense to say both “God reigns supreme” and “My reason reigns supreme” in the same sense of supremacy. The theist by definition believes in the former, so the latter cannot be true. Metaphysical autonomy is simply a non-issue among Christians. There is no debate here.
Now we turn to epistemic autonomy. Rather than stating that “My reason reigns supreme,” the Christian engaging in epistemic autonomy could say instead, “I am exercising my God-given critical faculties in order to gain knowledge.” Autonomous reason in this sense addresses reasoning processes (epistemology), not the origin of that reason (metaphysics). In order to think well to the glory of God, the Christian philosopher should have no problem with functionally autonomous reasoning, or epistemic autonomy. After all, this is how we test Christianity’s truthfulness, as well as any other worldview or proposition. Given my distinction, then, one can be convinced of his metaphysical dependence on God, while harmoniously engaged in the task of epistemic autonomy. The metaphysical claims of Christianity are thus perfectly compatible with the rational nature of philosophy.
Furthermore, there should be no discomfort present when a Christian professor encourages her students to pursue epistemic autonomy in their studies. All this means is that the students are to be encouraged to think well, critically, and to attain their own justification for their beliefs. There are simply some things, like logic or our own mental states, we can come to know “on our own” in the local rather than the ultimate sense. If rational autonomy necessarily entails the denial that God gave us our rational abilities, then Christians sin each time we balance our checkbooks, teach a child the difference between a square and a triangle, or report to a family member about how we feel at the moment. But this is thankfully untrue. All humans are rational beings, made in the image of a rational God (Isaiah 1:18). Let us use that rationality to buttress our faith with justification for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). Praise be to God for the ability to think for ourselves.
***I highly recommend John Frame’s thinking and work in general, even though I do not agree with him on everything.
Certainly, the benefit of reading must come to the soul by the way of the understanding. When the high priest went into the holy place he always lit the golden candlestick before he kindled the incense upon the brazen altar, as if to show that the mind must have illumination before the affections can properly rise towards their divine object. There must be knowledge of God before there can be love to God: there must be a knowledge of divine things, as they are revealed, before there can be an enjoyment of them. We must try to make out, as far as our finite mind can grasp it, what God means by this and what he means by that; otherwise we may kiss the book and have no love to its contents, we may reverence the letter and yet really have no devotion towards the Lord who speaks to us in these words. Beloved, you will never get comfort to your soul out of what you do not understand, nor find guidance for your life out of what you do not comprehend; nor can any practical bearing upon your character come out of that which is not understood by you.
-“How to Read the Bible,” a sermon delivered in 1879 by Charles Spurgeon
People have valued reasoned, fair disagreements and good listening skills for far too long. It is high time we dispense with those boring and outdated formalities! After all, why respect the laws of logic when you can enjoy the adventure of following your own passions? When you get the point, you can only either agree or disagree. How boring! On the other hand, when you miss the point, you open up a fallacy-filled wonderland where conversation and emotions are set free to frolic! If you wish to dispense with the authoritarian laws of logic (which care nothing about you!) and transcend the boundaries of social courtesy, then here are some suggestions for you to try on your entirely subjective journey. These primarily apply to written arguments, but can also apply to listening to a spoken argument.
1. Foster the conviction that all with whom you disagree are personally attacking you.
Even if the individual doesn’t know you, your ideas are your identity. Never mind the fact that this introduces all sorts of strange problems for understanding personal identity. That stuff is not important. What is important is that your very person, and all you hold dear, are being assaulted.
2. Don’t accept the author or speaker’s own definitions of his terms.
For instance, if someone is using the term “idealist” to mean a person who has lofty goals, you could show off your philosophical prowess and point out that he has gotten philosophical idealism (something else entirely) all wrong. It would also be fun to attack a Lutheran who believes in Christian orthodoxy (small “o”) for being a closet Orthodox Christian!
3. Embrace category confusion.
Here is a time-tested example: If the argument is about economics, you may wish to respond by claiming that the author is just racist. You get bonus points here, as this tactic also functions as an ad hominem and as a red herring fallacy (look them up if you are curious).
4. Ignore all qualifiers.
This most often takes the form of responding with a counterexample to an admitted generalization. Example: Your interlocutor is evaluating the drawbacks to social media, and then says “interactions on social media tend to encourage more rudeness than would be likely in person.” You can fire back a response like this: “I know a nice person who is on Facebook! See there? You’re wrong.” Or, “Uncle Joe uses Facebook to raise money for homeless puppies,” etc. You don’t want your counterexample to actually work. So, avoid using the skill in situations where the author has clearly made a universal statement such as, “There are no black swans.” Then, those who are still slaves to logic could refute the universal statement by saying– truthfully– that “Uncle Joe has a black swan.”
5. Skip to the end.
By doing this, you don’t get the argument at all, and you will miss the author’s definition of terms as well as all qualifications.
6. Read halfway through and stop reading.
Sometimes, an author begins by surveying a given topic, or by introducing an argument with which she will then disagree. If you stop reading halfway through, you can respond as if the survey or the dissenting argument were actually the view of the author!
7. Just read the title and no further.
This one is catching on all over the world. Make sure to leave a comment if it is a blog or a Facebook post. All of this can be accomplished in under a minute.
8. Partially attend to something else while reading or listening.
This is a sure way to miss important things to the author or speaker and only catch words and phrases that are important to you.
9. Convince yourself that evaluation of or criticism of something is reducible to hatred.
Assume that if the arguer has negative things to say about a person or thing, then the arguer is actually displaying a deep-seated, concentrated hatred of that person or thing. For instance, all who criticize technology clearly hate technology and are hypocrites for using it at all.
10. Confuse descriptive with prescriptive statements.
If I read an article reporting that “People who smoke marijuana enjoy the experience,” this is describing a state of affairs in the world (a descriptive statement). If I want to miss the point, I can respond as though it was a prescriptive statement. In other words, I can act shocked that the author would dare suggest that we should smoke marijuana (which would have been a prescriptive statement, had the author actually said that).
11. Ignore quotation marks, italics, or indented quotations, and attribute them to the quoting author.
By doing this, one can make the author appear to say all sorts of crazy things.
12. Remember that no one has the right to criticize things you like.
Decide right now that all criticisms of anything you like are immediately invalid. After all, we know that things and people that we like are perfect.
13. Misunderstand or fail to detect sarcasm.
To spin it positively, be rigidly serious all the time, insist on taking yourself very seriously, and you will discover all sorts of wild statements that are ready for your attack.
14. Insist on seeing your pet issue as a fundamental component of every argument you read.
If you are into women’s issues, for example, cry foul at anything in the argument that can conceivably (or even inconceivably) be construed as a sexist attack (assuming, of course, that the argument itself is not about women’s rights– then you must pick another point-missing tactic).
15. Don’t look up words you don’t understand.
Just react to them upon your first, confused reading.
16. Present your response when maximally angry.
You will be amazed at your own propensity for the creative use of fallacies, misspellings, and overall murky thinking when overcome by emotion. Things can get wild if you take this advice. You may even regret it later, making the fun last as long as possible. This can quickly turn as serious as a porcupine in a balloon factory.
17. Avoid paragraphed and correctly punctuated responses.
If you are going to respond online, it is fun to see how crazy you can make your chosen target by posting responses that are almost as long as War and Peace. The more run-on sentences the better; when you omit careful punctuation and paragraphs, it tends to stun the opponent. If you are lucky, the bewildered adversary may actually try to respond to your mass of verbal chaos. Watch him squirm, and enjoy.
Some people are born smarter than others, but not everyone who has the capacity to think well does so. Moreover, naturally intelligent people may be riddled with intellectual vice (such as sloth, misguided curiosity, etc.), a problem that tempts people at all levels of intellectual gifting. Simply having natural intelligence helps, but this is not sufficient for being a sound and wise thinker. An individual could be a gifted memorizer thus a straight-A student, and yet fail to develop a true love of learning because of hours squandered away every night surfing the internet. Being an intellectually virtuous thinker requires deliberately cultivated habits. As you behave, so you will think. The mind is plastic, not static, and our intellectual habits will shape our minds– for better or worse. Here are just a few humble suggestions for building a more robust thought-life, in no particular order.
1. Write down new words, ideas that interest you, or things other people say which strike you as interesting. Keep a note pad and pen where you can easily access them, and record these things immediately. When you get the chance, use the notepad to remind yourself of these recent thoughts, then buy a book on the subject, discuss the idea with friends, or determine to use the new word sometime that day.
2. Engage in concentration training. For instance, resolve to read for 30 minutes each day without checking Facebook, your email, or getting up for a snack. When this is no longer a problem (and, in the digital age, it will not be easy), then increase to 45 minutes, then an hour.
3. Be a good listener. You will find that shutting up and letting others do the talking will give you much to think about and will help heighten your sensitivity.
4. Spend the majority of your time around people you find to be wise and articulate. Iron sharpens iron.
5. Read as often as possible, but don’t just read anything. Spending the majority of your time in poorly written or poorly reasoned books can easily poison your sensibilities. If you have limited time to read, then stick with books you know will be edifying, such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, J. Gresham Machen, Os Guinness, David Wells, etc. If you must read an inferior text, then detoxify as soon as possible with a truly excellent book.
6. Edit your words in your mind before they exit your mouth. Always speak in a manner that would not haunt you if it were transcribed.
7. If you are going to write an email, or post something on a blog, Facebook, Twitter, or the like, think about it, check for errors, and gauge its appropriateness before posting. Adopt a “waiting period” policy for online posting.
8. Be suspicious of anything which purports to be a new idea. Often, it is something that has been already beaten to death and addressed by brilliant people in ages past.
9. Embrace marginalia. Read with a pen, and write down summaries, elaborations, and questions in the margin. It will help more of your reading “stick.”
10. Learn to be comfortable with silence, even when talking to other people. The best thinking and deepest conversations occur when there is room for pausing, thinking, and listening.
11. Study logic, grammar, and rhetoric. It will help you to be more persuasive, and it will also keep you from being as easily swayed by the words and antics of others.
There are so many more, but this is at least a start.