This year 2008 is probably the seventh year since i took the plunge into the controversial world of Christian apologetics. The quest for truth, the answers for the 'whys', the verification of all that is claimed is what spurred me on in the first place. When did it all start? I remember it was sometime in 2001 when at a cell group meeting (i won't mention the Church), someone tried to teach me to pray in tongues. At a subsequent cell meeting, someone else was "slain by the spirit." Both of these doctrines i am in grave doubt about. But it was then that i realised that i knew not what i believed in. I was floating around not knowing anything about Christianity.
But what is the relevance of apologetics today? I have just one point to make and one qualification. In a recent book entitled "Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics", William Lane Craig in his introduction argues that Christians today are becoming de-intellectualised. In a separate book, Ravi Zacharias illustrates this when he gives the example of parents refusing to let their children be educated in basic apologetics for fear that they would become arrogant. Craig then states pointedly that with every generation of Christians that loses an intellectual battle, it makes it more difficult for the subsequent generations to show the relevance of Christ in this world.
I am therefore leaning towards believing that every Christian should have a basic schooling in apologetics. As much as atheists may heap scorn on the practice of apologetics, Christians should not shy away from it. We need to know what we believe in. A simple belief in the scriptures is insufficient if we know not whether the Bible is even reliable or not!
We need to move away from a situation where a Christian can only state "i believe in the resurrection because i have faith" and not be able to state "i believe in the resurrection because i know it is true and i know there is evidence for it." No, a deep knowledge should not be mandated, for not everyone can handle such intellectual depths. But the thrust of it is that we should at least know what we believe and know why we believe. A Christian who goes through life believing just on faith miracles such as the resurrection constantly run the risk of being tripped up by the simplest of suggestions that the resurrection never occured.
One qualification needs to be set out. Apologetics cannot exist in a vacuum. It cannot be exclusive from prayer and knowledge of the Word. Should it ever be so, it will be reduced to no more than an intellectual pursuit that anyone can engage in.
But a word of caution here is in order for those who intend to try out Christian apologetics. I remember a recent conversation with Rachael in which she asked me about certain objections her friend had to the Christian faith. One of my responses was to give her a warning, or two warnings. That firstly, once you get in, it is difficult to get out. Once you begin to take up the decision to defend the faith, how do you quit it? can you take the label of being someone who 'quit defending the faith"? Secondly, it apologetics hurts. It is draining to be attacked on all fronts for what you believe in. It is a feeling of helplessness when you are faced with a question on an area in which you have little knowledge. It is a feeling of despair when you know that you gave a wrong or inadequate answer, and that slip of yours caused someone to stumble. It is a feeling of hurt when you are insulted and battered with vicious attacks on your person from atheists who clearly subscribe to no moral law and therefore have no restrictions on ad hominem.
But it's worth it. Through it you get stronger, through it you learn to depend not on yourself but on the person and deity of Christ. No one else will do.
and so i have been rethinking apologetics and will continue to do so. my views have changed greatly, sometimes taken complete 180 degree turns over the years. Let me just end by affirming that beneath it all, what undergirds apologetics and indeed all of Christian faith is the power of the cross. That is what we should never lose sight of. Without the Cross, Christianity is dead and we are hopeless. With the Cross, we have forgiveness and a promise of life.
Deluded? The atheists certainly think that we are.
Defeated? Certainly not.
This is a beautiful song.
"The Power of the Cross"
Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2005 Thankyou Music
Oh, to see the dawn
Of the darkest day:
Christ on the road to Calvary.
Tried by sinful men,
Torn and beaten, then
Nailed to a cross of wood.
CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Christ became sin for us;
Took the blame, bore the wrath—
We stand forgiven at the cross.
Oh, to see the pain
Written on Your face,
Bearing the awesome weight of sin.
Ev'ry bitter thought,
Ev'ry evil deed
Crowning Your bloodstained brow.
Now the daylight flees;
Now the ground beneath
Quakes as its Maker bows His head.
Curtain torn in two,
Dead are raised to life;
"Finished!" the vict'ry cry.
Oh, to see my name
Written in the wounds,
For through Your suffering I am free.
Death is crushed to death;
Life is mine to live,
Won through Your selfless love.
FINAL CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Son of God—slain for us.
What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross.
But what is the relevance of apologetics today? I have just one point to make and one qualification. In a recent book entitled "Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics", William Lane Craig in his introduction argues that Christians today are becoming de-intellectualised. In a separate book, Ravi Zacharias illustrates this when he gives the example of parents refusing to let their children be educated in basic apologetics for fear that they would become arrogant. Craig then states pointedly that with every generation of Christians that loses an intellectual battle, it makes it more difficult for the subsequent generations to show the relevance of Christ in this world.
I am therefore leaning towards believing that every Christian should have a basic schooling in apologetics. As much as atheists may heap scorn on the practice of apologetics, Christians should not shy away from it. We need to know what we believe in. A simple belief in the scriptures is insufficient if we know not whether the Bible is even reliable or not!
We need to move away from a situation where a Christian can only state "i believe in the resurrection because i have faith" and not be able to state "i believe in the resurrection because i know it is true and i know there is evidence for it." No, a deep knowledge should not be mandated, for not everyone can handle such intellectual depths. But the thrust of it is that we should at least know what we believe and know why we believe. A Christian who goes through life believing just on faith miracles such as the resurrection constantly run the risk of being tripped up by the simplest of suggestions that the resurrection never occured.
One qualification needs to be set out. Apologetics cannot exist in a vacuum. It cannot be exclusive from prayer and knowledge of the Word. Should it ever be so, it will be reduced to no more than an intellectual pursuit that anyone can engage in.
But a word of caution here is in order for those who intend to try out Christian apologetics. I remember a recent conversation with Rachael in which she asked me about certain objections her friend had to the Christian faith. One of my responses was to give her a warning, or two warnings. That firstly, once you get in, it is difficult to get out. Once you begin to take up the decision to defend the faith, how do you quit it? can you take the label of being someone who 'quit defending the faith"? Secondly, it apologetics hurts. It is draining to be attacked on all fronts for what you believe in. It is a feeling of helplessness when you are faced with a question on an area in which you have little knowledge. It is a feeling of despair when you know that you gave a wrong or inadequate answer, and that slip of yours caused someone to stumble. It is a feeling of hurt when you are insulted and battered with vicious attacks on your person from atheists who clearly subscribe to no moral law and therefore have no restrictions on ad hominem.
But it's worth it. Through it you get stronger, through it you learn to depend not on yourself but on the person and deity of Christ. No one else will do.
and so i have been rethinking apologetics and will continue to do so. my views have changed greatly, sometimes taken complete 180 degree turns over the years. Let me just end by affirming that beneath it all, what undergirds apologetics and indeed all of Christian faith is the power of the cross. That is what we should never lose sight of. Without the Cross, Christianity is dead and we are hopeless. With the Cross, we have forgiveness and a promise of life.
Deluded? The atheists certainly think that we are.
Defeated? Certainly not.
This is a beautiful song.
"The Power of the Cross"
Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2005 Thankyou Music
Oh, to see the dawn
Of the darkest day:
Christ on the road to Calvary.
Tried by sinful men,
Torn and beaten, then
Nailed to a cross of wood.
CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Christ became sin for us;
Took the blame, bore the wrath—
We stand forgiven at the cross.
Oh, to see the pain
Written on Your face,
Bearing the awesome weight of sin.
Ev'ry bitter thought,
Ev'ry evil deed
Crowning Your bloodstained brow.
Now the daylight flees;
Now the ground beneath
Quakes as its Maker bows His head.
Curtain torn in two,
Dead are raised to life;
"Finished!" the vict'ry cry.
Oh, to see my name
Written in the wounds,
For through Your suffering I am free.
Death is crushed to death;
Life is mine to live,
Won through Your selfless love.
FINAL CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Son of God—slain for us.
What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross.
Posts
23 comments:
Ravi Zacharias is a horrible debater. Which means he's a good apologist.
He was interviewed on the Reason Driven Pocast (http://reasondriven.blogspot.com/2008/07/episode-28-jerusalem-wasnt-built-in-day.html) and among the many fallacies and lies he indulged in were:
- Dishonestly misrepresenting Peter Singer as claiming a child with Down's Syndrome is worse than a pig
- claiming that if Sartre is right we should kill ourselves
- making theism the default position to fall back to
- bait and switching (changing the problem of Hell to that of Evil)
- the Euthyphro problem
There're 2 ways of defending Christianity. One is on philosophical grounds (the problem of evil, the argument from design etc). The problem of this is that even if true, they'd commit us to deism at the most.
The other is on historical grounds (the gospels are accurate, Christ really rose etc). The problem with this is that you have to rewrite history or be an atrocious historian in order to do this. And even if you're right, you're probably left with a version of history that's not the same as what we conventionally think of when Christianity comes to mind.
Either way, when you dig down there's always a fudge somewhere.
Is it better to believe something for no reason, or for a bad reason? I don't know.
Certum est quia impossibile est (The fact is certain because it is impossible) - Tertullian, early Church Father
Apologetics aside:
It is a feeling of hurt when you are insulted and battered with vicious attacks on your person from atheists who clearly subscribe to no moral law and therefore have no restrictions on ad hominem
Your propositions (P):
P1) Atheists, and only atheists, attack you viciously (presumably this means calling you wicked, stupid etc)
P2) Atheists subscribe to no moral law
P3) A moral law means there're restrictions on ad hominem attacks
Implications:
I1) Theists, and even more so, Christians, do not attack others viciously
I2) Theists subscribe to a moral law
Responses:
P1: Do agnostics attack you? Do other theists? How about Christians, even?
If someone thought the world was flat, would you call them stupid? If not, would you call *anyone* stupid? If we can't ever use the word "stupid", why does it exist in our language? Surely it should be able to refer to *some* people.
In any case, I believe the vast majority of non-theists do not think theists are stupid, wicked etc, but rather misled. We may be sad, regretful or pitiful about this state of affairs.
OTOH, do bear in mind that even Hitler thought that he was doing the right thing. He wanted to purge the world of Jewish filth, who he sincerely thought were inferior and evil. Worse than cockroaches, perhaps. Would you fault someone who wanted to eradicate cockroaches from the face of this earth?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just because people have good intentions does not mean that they should not be opposed or condemned.
P2: There are many non-theistic sources of morality. In fact, statistically speaking, non-theists are less likely to commit crimes than theists.
"Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit."
P3: It is not clear that this is the case, unless there is some injunction against making personal attacks. Which I don't think is a part of moral laws, in general.
I1: A Christian who proclaimed on her old blog that "I love Jesus!":
"I think you should have been killed in the holocaust. Really. But I believe God wanted you alive so that you would spread your vicious and laughable lies to more of your deluded brethren, both jews and gentile converts who deserve to be in hell with you.
... All you jews who reject Jesus will be burning in hell and I will be waving in glee to all of you with a smile on my face from above, standing at the right hand of my King. I will certainly send my regards again then."
I2: The "law" that theists subscribe to seems to be no more than the whim of their gods.
While obedience to commands might conceivably be described as a moral code, it is not clear that it can be a "law" which presumably has principles and is unchanging.
etc etc etc
you seem to enjoy engaging me on my thoughts. rather than see that as a compliment from you (which i'm sure is not), i'd just take these chances to challenge myself with your counterviews (:
firstly, you seem to regard apologetics as a zero sum game. with regard to your personal self, perhaps it is - either it is true, or it is not true. but apologetics is far from being a mere zero sum game. in a theatre of people listening to him, surely zacharias cannot expect all to agree with him. there would inevitably be people like yourself (and many of the young republic folk) who, if present, would scoff at all he says.
perhaps i am wrong in saying this, but apologetics is not targeted at people like yourself who claim to have been enlightened from religion and are adamantly against Christianity or any form of religion for that matter.
I am in no position to defend zacharias, other than to wonder aloud whether you would be willing to question him yourself in person should you decide to attend a talk of his if ever he is in Singapore. if you would be present and willing to question, then by all means throw those allegations at him. then let's see him respond.
regarding historicity, again i wonder whether your hardline claims that we have to 'rewrite history' or be an 'atrocious historian' are indeed accurate. not even antony flew dared to make such claims when he was still an atheist. sure, hitchens, dawkins, and harris all make these allegations in their blockbuster religion bashers. pagels has been at the forefront of it as well, painting a picture of history that casts severe doubt on the historicity of documents. baigent and leigh tried it long ago as well. but how much of what they allege is true?
here is where i turn the question back to you: have you as an atheist decided to read only atheistic material?
My own digging has led me to fresh water. i can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why it has led you somewhere else.
just as you may find it justified to make generalisations ony Christians, i think i'm justified as well in saying that the most vicious attacks in my experience come from atheists. agnostics with whom i have had exchanges with more often than not come across as being rather open minded but for a great measure of restraint against committing to any one particular worldview.
yes i do believe that theism puts in place some restrictions against making attacks. this is simply because there is a firm moral framework in place.
i fully concede without reservations that there are Christians who engage in name-calling and ad hominem as well. but the difference between them and atheists is that Christ would never have sanctioned hurt speech, but for atheists, there are no restrictions on them; indeed they are free to do what they please.
I don't know what you mean by a zero sum game, and the point is not whether people agree or disagree with Zacharias, the point is that he's talking nonsense, and perhaps even lying. How do you feel about MLM marketers who sell old people magnetic bracelets that supposedly extend their lives and backup their claims with pseudoscientific nonsense?
Apologetics is targeted at retaining sheep within the flock and at converting new sheep. The pursuit of truth is put on a backburner (if it is present at all).
I have been to at least one Christian talk before, and tried to keep them honest. What happened was that questions were screened the next time. Anyhow, I am not so free: besides exposing Christian intellectual suicide, I have many other interests and hobbies. If he comes to Singapore one day, and it's free, I *might* attend.
Btw, Flew is still an a-christian. His theism is deism. So his becoming a theist has nothing to do with the historical truth claims Christianity makes.
Baigent seems to be Da Vinci code nonsense (dismissed by mainstream historians), and Pagels' work on Gnosticism is not really relevant as it seems to be literary analysis than historical study. I can't find anything on Leigh.
I have read a lot of christian apologetics (how else could I have known about Zacharias's fallacies and lies?) A lot of it during my deconversion (or rather, enlightenment), and some since (though it's tapered off - as has my reading of atheistic material: Christian mythology gets boring after a while)
In fact, one day when I was a slave I was sitting in camp and a stranger called me and said he'd post me Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, which was one of the worst books I'd ever written (Neo-Nostradamian crap edges it out, however). It's still in my cupboard. I don't want to inflict it upon anyone else. Ugh.
Everyone's digging leads them to different places. Do you wonder why other theists reach different conclusions? Hell, there're probably as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.
I am curious what sort of "vicious attacks" you have gotten from atheists.
If not being "open minded" and not having "a great measure of restraint against committing to any one particular worldview", even non-postmodern Christians would qualify.
Would you criticise someone who unequivocally affirmed that the earth was not flat for not being open minded, and not "a great measure of restraint against committing to any one particular worldview"?
What moral framework exists about making attacks? And how can you generalise from Christianity to theism? Hell, even Christianity is not homogenous: Liberation Theology and Jerry Falwell come from very different schools.
"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." - Arthur Hays Sulzberger
"Marx's 'true' position on this is not easily recoverable. Like most interesting thinkers, he took insufficient pains to make himself understood, thus leaving room for considerable controversy over the meaning of the concepts and laws he enunciated. Pareto once likened Marx's statements to bats: you can see in them something that looks like a mouse and something that appears like a bird." - Joseph V. Femia
The same could be said of Christ. Besides which, Christianity is about more than Christ.
well about lies, it's simple. a lot of times, it's a matter of perspective. i consider much of the claims of evolution to be lies. certainly you do not.
he has come before and his organisation has a presence there. NUS occasionally has speakers from his ministry visit on invitation from on-campus Christian groups. and yes, it's free.
yes i would be indignant if someone affirmed the world was flat. but it's not as simple as that. you consider Christianity to be debunked but there is certainly more truth to its claims than what you assert.
what moral framework exists? for the Christian, it is the command to love our enemies. for the proponents of other religions, each of them are taught about love as well, or doing good in general.
what sort of vicious attacks? personally, i've come across it when engaged in dialogue about evolution. a simple read of works by the atheistic trinity (dawkins-harris-hitchens) would reveal vicious strands of thought as well.
Hi Shangjun,
You have pointed out or touched on several aspects of Christianity which is troubling the world today.
Before we launch into any debate let me first state that i unashamedly call myself a Christian, but i also am proud to say that while i believe that the Bible is authoritative, it is not absolutely infallible.
The problem i have with Christian apologetics is that you always enter a discussion with the firmly planted notion that you are always right. I simply cannot bring myself to cultivate that level of arrogance, because i know that i am NOT always right.
The way i see it, is that Christian apologetics was born along with the emergence of Science. Pre-enlightenment Christians never had to justify their worldview because there simply was no evidence against it. Unfortunately Christianity is now being bombarded from all fronts by facts which run in direct contradiction to what the Bible has been proclaiming for the last 2000 years.
This brings us to your very pertinent point that Christianity today is very much de-intellectualised. I believe this to be very much a self-defense mechanism, because conservative Christianity has simply become non-viable to those who are unwilling to surrender their intellect.
Ultimately you need to define what you mean when you call youself an apologetic. If you look up the subject on Wikipedia you'll find that apologetics encompasses a huge array of different schools of thought. In this agagooga is right, that there are probably as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.
The strange thing is that every single Christian seems to be fixed in the idea that they are the only ones who are right. Which is the spirit of apologetics. But that immediately runs contrary to the notion that Christians are privy to the ONE TRUTH.
To put it simply, Christian apologetics just don't make logical sense to me. You are trying to justify what is unjustifyable. Christians should just concentrate on nurturing their confidence in their own version of the truth without having to denounce everyone else as liars.
hi there. thanks for an insightful comment. here are my responses
1) yes i believe that the Bible is authoritative. and i believe that the Bible is inerrant. but my concept of inerrancy is different from the islamic concept of inerrancy which sees every word of the Koran as being true. i believe that the core concepts of the Bible are true, as opposed to word-for-word truth. and unlike you, i believe in inerrancy as well
2) i do not "always enter a discussion with the firmly planted notion that i am always right." and i would reconsider the use of the word "arrogance" to describe apologetics. because if you take the basis for apologetics in 1 Pet 3:15, it talks about giving answers in lover. and indeed that should be the attitude that apologists take when giving answers. the possibility that i am wrong is always open. i cannot know everything. but when i seek to present answers, i do so in the hope that i may give a reason for my faith.
3) thirdly, are apologists trying to denounce everyone as being liars? that is a rather sweeping and strong allegation to make. personally i seek to persuade others to consider another viewpoint. i don't go in with a hot head and try to put down everyone.
perhaps you can reconsider your perspective on apologetics. perhaps you have been around people who tend to be condescending towards others who doubt. i do not know. but in my opinion, that is not the spirit of apologetics.
Perspective is very important.
Scientologists consider mainstream psychiatry to be lies.
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists consider the official story to be a lie.
Some people think we never landed on the moon.
Young Earth Creationists consider geology, biology, astrophysics and generally the whole edifice of reason to be lies.
Whatever nuggets of wisdom there are in Christianity are not exclusive to it, since you can get them in proverbs, sayings or moral rules of other cultures and times.
And after all this while you still haven't specified what "vicious attacks" consist of, but just referred to them unceasingly until (you hope) I concede your point. Until you substantiate your claim, I will not.
vampyricpyrexia: Some form of scientific thinking has been present since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks, which predates Christianity by at least a few hundred years.
Christian Apologetics was born with the early Church Fathers who defended the truth of their doctrine. They cut their teeth against Christian heretics but also had some altercations with pagans. Of course, we all know who won (and I don't mean because their arguments were stronger).
And just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you think they're a liar. They could be mistaken, uninformed, misled or "fallen" (*shudder*)
vicious attacks to me are when someone attacks my character, namely by name-calling. i've been called stupid, ignorant, accused of having a lack of intelligence. and when i read atheist literature, as much as you may state that dawkins, hitchens et al are targeting a larger audience, i take their insults somewhat with a personal touch as well (e.g. being called wicked).
Well, you keep evading my basic question.
Would you consider:
- Scientologists
- 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
- Apollo Hoaxers
- JFK Conspiracy Theorists
- People who think CERN will create a black hole which
- Young Earth Creationists
to be stupid, ignorant, having a lack of intelligence etc?
i don't get you. you want me to tell you what vicious attacks consist of and i have. i consider name-calling and insults to the person to be vicious. do i never engage in ad hominem? of course i slip into it now and then and i admit it! i fail. but as far as i am concerned, i try my darnest to keep out of it. you may disagree with me and that's fine. i don't need you to wear my suit.
and no i wouldn't go around branding them as stupid, ignorant, or having a lack of intelligence. that would be ad hominem. i have a two good friends who are young earth creationists. i disagree with them completely but i don't pass judgement on them. i ask them why they think so and engage them on it, but to think them stupid? no. i'd prefer to direct my criticism to the views put forth and not to the person. you may think they're stupid and i grant you that. you're entitled to your views.
i don't know what you are trying to achieve here. i may be wrong but i sense so much bitterness in you. i can only guess that you must have had a really scarring experience at Church that causes you to have such animosity against the Church and against Christians or people who try to believe an intellectual basis for Christianity is possible. if i'm right, i can only say i'm sincerely sorry that the Church and Christians have treated you badly. i know that may not do any good, but there's nothing else i can do.
have a good day ahead.
Who then (if any), in your book, would be stupid, ignorant, having a lack of intelligence etc?
Vigour in promoting views does not necessarily indicate bitterness. If so, there would be A LOT of bitter people in the world.
I admit I am cheesed off at being conned all these years, but I wouldn't say I have a great deal of bitterness.
i would rather not classify anyone to be as such or any group of people to be as such. (:
nah it's not just your vigour here on my comments page. its also from the general feel of the writings on your blog. i just get that sense. maybe i'm wrong? perhaps.
It's for reasons similar to why alcoholics are virulently against drunkenness, maths teachers are upset when people do not factorise expressions but instead divide by a variable which can take a value of zero, skeptics are frustrated by people believing urban legends readily, parents don't want their children to gamble and people are annoyed by MLM/get rich quick scams.
well perhaps. but maybe to describe what you've written as mere annoyance or simply 'being upset' would be quite an understatement in my humble view. perhaps it's just me being oversensitive ;)
oh well. have a great night. it's nearly 2am and you're still posting! i'm going out for a free movie in school now. cheers
The night is still young and I am yet unemployed.
Err. My writings on religion stretch from 2003 to the present. And anyway it depends on my mood also. I'm sure sometimes you rather not do apologetics and just want to eat chips and drink beer.
i know i said i was going out but i was washing my dishes. and you're right that sometimes i just feel like basking in the sunshine and taking a break from all those brain-numbing stuff.
and that's precisely waht i'm going to do now. watch movie, and head to a pub for a pint of english ale later.
later! ;)
and cmon you're one of the head honchos of tomorrow.sg! that should count as employment.
>< It will if I'm paid!
Post a Comment