In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an over-whelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments for Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to teach our children Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics. Frankly, I find it hard to understand how people today can risk parenthood without having studied apologetics.

Unfortunately, our churches have largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war. We dare not send them out to public high school and university armed with rubber swords and plastic armour. The time for playing games is past.

I hear the best politicians these days are the ones who can unashamedly equivocate on the meaning of “is”, or tell the filthiest lies with a straight face and a slick smile.

On the assumption that there’s a shortage of such people in the world, I think it’s imperative we begin the Dawkins for Prime Minister Campaign immediately.

I was tipped off by an editorial in The Guardian yesterday, where Dawkins gives the final word on why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. It’s a masterful piece of political spin-doctoring. “Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig,” he begins. “He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”.”

Now, just last night I was watching Stephen Fry’s Planet Word, where he talks about the masterful way Goebbels used language to make the industrial-scale elimination of the Jews seem a perfectly reasonable thing. In fairness, Dawkins is no Goebbels, but he would have made a good propagandist.

Notice how he deftly frames his entire piece with aspersions on Craig’s credentials. From the alleged ignorance among his philosopher friends of Craig’s name, to the scare quotes around “theologian”.

Of course, if Dawkins’s audience were savvy enough to check for themselves, as hopefully at least some of them are, a simple Google search would show what utter garbage this is. Here’s how Wikipedia, hardly a sympathetic source, introduces Craig:

…an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalam cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology… [etc]

What should we conclude from the fact that Dawkins’s professors of philosophy haven’t even heard of Craig?

Either that these fellows are quacks, or—more likely—that even in an underpopulated field like philosophy the chances of knowing a fraction of the professionals in your discipline is pretty small. For example, I have a three-pronged profession: copywriting, marketing, and web design. Those combine into a fourth profession called conversion-rate optimization. Do you think I’ve heard of even one tenth of the most successful copywriters, marketers, web designers, and CRO experts? I seriously doubt it.

For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

What Dawkins means to say is that ever since Craig destroyed the sophomoric arguments in the The God Delusion he has wanted to advance the discussion with Dawkins, and hopefully reveal to all his slavering fanboys how little substance there is to his position. Craig doesn’t want people believing lies—more than can be said for Dawkins, given the rank disingenuousness of his editorial.

Dawkins of course has consistently balked at debating Craig, presumably because he doesn’t want it to be publicly revealed that his arguments haven’t the slightest ability to stand up to rigorous analysis. It wouldn’t look good on his CV.

Craig’s latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice.

One of the greatest “refutations” you can employ is simply to state the facts with a sarcastic slant that implies only an imbecile would accept them. But the accusations of cowardice are perfectly accurate. Dawkins is a coward in the same way he is a bully. He enjoys notoriety and taking shots at Christianity in a medium where he’s got all the control. He can feel like a big man publishing best-selling books aimed at people with even less schooling in critical thinking than he has. But like any bully, if you confront him and threaten him with a bloody nose, he’s quick to disappear.

Dawkins reminds me of Draco Malfoy after Hermione socked him in the kisser in The Prisoner of Azkaban. “Not a word to anyone, understood? I’m gonna get that jumped-up mudblood, mark my words!” he rants to his friends as they beat a sniveling retreat. Yeah right Malfoy.

I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I’m looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

Strange—aren’t these people “theologians” with scare quotes? So why are they more worthy than Craig? Could it be because they’ve got less credentials than him? Because they haven’t already published work that obliterates Dawkins’s arguments against God? I guess it’s probably something like that.

After some more accusations of self-promotion, which ring about as hollow as a pot beating on a black kettle, Dawkins turns to Craig’s “dark side”.

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.

He then quotes Craig’s defense of God’s actions toward the Canaanite children, concluding: “Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?”

Well, not to state the obvious, but an evolutionary context justifies them pretty well. Surely Dawkins can’t have forgotten writing about how “a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make[s] nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not.” Surely he can’t have forgotten that “any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.”

If a truly scientific view of the world makes nonsense of blame and responsibility, then certainly there’s no sense in which genocide, or the defense of genocide, is unjustified. There’s no moral dimension to it whatsoever. So why is Dawkins borrowing moral norms he inherited from Christianity to judge Craig, instead of taking the rational approach and admitting there’s no reason whatsoever to condemn genocide, given what he believes?

Well, I suppose it’s because that wouldn’t make for a very good smear campaign.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t.

This seems oddly forced coming from the man who looks forward to the day when religion is only tolerated behind bars at zoos. But then, it’s all a giant smokescreen anyway; a diversionary tactic. Dawkins needs to use sleight of hand to direct his audience’s attention toward Craig’s character assassination, so they won’t notice how Craig has already assassinated Dawkins’s arguments—and would do so again given half a chance.

Dawkins is clearly cut out to be a master politician. Let’s get him out of the intellectual sphere and put him where he belongs. Dawkins for Prime Minister!

Update: James Anderson and Oxford historian Tim Stanley have also weighed in with their comments. Anderson is typically incisive, concluding that “In the end, all Dawkins has really told us is that he won’t debate Craig because he finds Craig’s views personally offensive. It’s not that Craig’s views are unethical… It’s just that Dawkins…is disgusted — and that’s all there is to it. Even if that were the real reason for his refusal to debate Craig, it would hardly be a compelling one.”

- Kara Powell, on a three-year study conducted by Fuller Theological Seminary’s Center for Youth and Family Ministry.

[Via: Jay L. Wile]

1. It helps us to provide a more reasonable account of what we believe.
2. It reminds us of the community of faith.
3. It helps us to understand which beliefs are central to our faith.
4. It assists us in interpreting the Bible.
5. It demonstrates that God is working through and among His people.

You can read his explanation of each point here.

[HT: Wintery Knight]

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

[Source: Tim McGrew]

Thinking Matters Tauranga and Holy Trinity Tauranga have partnered together to produce a new fortnightly apologetics series for young people called “Thinking Matters in a Whatever World”. The series runs from August to December and is hosted at Holy Trinity, Cnr 3rd Ave and Cameron Rd, Tauranga (New Zealand).

For more info see here.

To be kept up to date with events, speakers and special announcements – like us on Facebook here: www.facebook.com/thinkingmattersyouth

We often get questions about theology and apologetics sent to us by readers and we thought it would be helpful if we shared some of our answers to those questions on the blog. If you’ve got a question that you’d like us to address here, send it to thinknz@gmail.com along with your full name, city, and country.

This week, one of our readers from Tauranga, New Zealand, asks what practical advice we can offer for sharing the truth of Christianity with others.

Bnonn Tennant:

It’s difficult to give you a one-size-fits-all solution, because your personal conviction will look different to mine. For example, I came to faith very largely through interacting with the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). By all accounts, that’s a pretty rare way for an unbeliever to be persuaded, but it still holds a lot of sway over the intellectual element of my faith. Whereas a lot of other people have been persuaded by the historical evidence for Christianity, or by more evidential arguments, or by fulfilled prophecies—and they’d find it hard to get behind “philosophical” arguments like mine.

So I’d suggest you develop a general strategy around apologetics, rather than trying to find a set of “perfect tactics” you can apply in any particular situation. There are some methods that work fairly well in typical cases, and I’d look to William Lane Craig for an example of that. But if you take a more strategic approach, you can pick your tactics on the fly and be a lot more flexible. Here are the four most important suggestions I’d make for developing an apologetic strategy that will work well for you:

1. Pray. No one comes to Christ except that the Father draws him. Not much good going about steps #2 to #4 if you aren’t asking God to help you, since he’s the only one who can make them effective.

2. Figure out for yourself which arguments you find most convincing. What are the reasons that you are personally convicted of the truth of the gospel? When you’re talking to a skeptic, he wants to know why you believe. Whether he’s trying to tear down your position, or just understand it, your answers will be firmer and bolder and more convincing if you’re 100% behind them. So for example, I don’t often talk to atheists about the historical evidence for Christianity. I’m ready to talk about it, if it comes up, but it’s not something that holds much sway in my personal convictions. So I steer the conversation toward the issue of “What must be true in order for us to even ask the question of whether God exists?” And similar questions, like, “Which are we more warranted in believing: that objective moral values exist, or that there is nothing except the physical universe?”

3. Think about (or ask about) the worldview of the person you’re talking to. What sorts of issues are most important to him (or her)? What does he think “evidence” is, or at least, what kind of evidence does he find most convincing? What are the major reasons he has for disbelieving in God, or if not in God, in Jesus? What kinds of assumptions does he make in his worldview? Has he examined them to see if they’re reasonable? Does he even know he’s making them? Then look at your reasons for believing, and pick out the ones that best match these biases, so you can find a direction for the conversation. It’s very easy to get confrontational in apologetics—-and there is a place for that. But most people “just don’t get it”, and only come across as confrontational because they’re defensive and don’t want to be preached at. You can get a heck of a lot of mileage out of the Pareto principle: spend 80% of your time listening to their position, and only 20% of the time talking yourself. Remember that you don’t have the sole burden of proof. If anything, the real burden lies on the non-believer, who questions God.

4. When you push, people will push back. But if you pull, they’ll come much more easily. In line with #3, the objective of apologetics in one-on-one situations is very rarely to win the argument. What is important is to win the soul. If you keep that focus front and center, it shows through in your approach, and can have a very disarming effect. Remember that non-Christians are God’s enemies—they naturally feel uncomfortable and antagonistic towards the things of God. The gospel is an offense to them. That puts them on the defensive and makes them believe and say stupid things they don’t really have good reasons for saying. And they’re afraid of having this foolishness exposed, because deep down they know they’re wrong. That’s what the Bible tells us. You have to gauge how firmly you can push against these beliefs. Some people, the rare ones, are comfortable probing and testing them, and replacing the bad ones with good ones. But even they seldom do it on the spot. People hate to lose face. And most people are very resistant to change at all. So you have to really love the person, rather than the argument. Never make it a question of “you’re wrong and I’m right and come hell or high water I will show you that right now.” Rather make it a question of “I have something of incredible value that I want you to have as well, and this is why I think you should believe it. Why don’t you think about it?” If you can take it slow, as you can with family usually, so much the better. A conversation here, another one there. Let God do the hard work.

Btw, #4 is really hard :) So refer back to #1.

Stuart McEwing:

My practical advice would be three-fold based on my own similar experiences; failures and successes, with sharing my faith.

I find that when I do have opportunity to share with someone what and why I believe, that I obsessively analyze our conversation afterwards in my head. Often I find myself wishing I responded to a question or observation of theirs in a different way; I could have made what I said a whole lot more understandable, I could have said something else entirely, I shouldn’t have got side-tracked like that, I didn’t mention this that I wanted to get to, and so on and on it goes.

The solution I’ve found tremendously helpful is to write letters. In this way I can be assured I say everything I want to say, and I say it in a way that is simple and to the point, without the off-the-cuff, impromptu ramblings, or the frustrating stumbling around the answer that you know you know but don’t know how to articulate, or the embarrassing, “Hmm… I don’t know how to respond to that. I’ll have to get back to you.”

The benefits of writing letters are multiple. It means you’re not interrupted at the most inopportune time. I means your words can be read again and again, over and over. The process of writing something down often informs you that you don’t really know the subject as well as you thought you did. It helps you clarify your own thinking. It helps illumine certain objections before they arise and cause troubles. It lets you develop the best way of expressing your reasons. And best of all, once you’ve written your letter, your all the better equipped to express with words when need be the same ideas.

My second recommendation is to develop a 30 sec, 2 min, and 5 min version of your own personal story as to how you came to faith in Jesus, then memorize it really good. This is so you’ll be prepared to share with anyone, at any moment, the reasons why you believe as you do. Then, after making the most out of such opportunities, you will find that this personal story of yours creates a platform for you to then commend your faith as rational, and more plausible than any other belief.

My third recommendation is to memorize the arguments and reasons. In syllogistic form the arguments can usually be expressed with two or three premises and a conclusion, so memorization is not that difficult. If the reason comes in the form of an illustration make it as vivid and memorable as possible and practice it. For both forms think of the reasons and the common objections and rehearse the possible responses so you’re confident when called upon to share them.

Thanks for asking, that’s a great question. I’d be interested in any other suggestions that you’ve found helpful, as these suggestions might be of help for me. It’d be an encouragement to hear of your successes.

Jason Kumar:

1. Recognize that persuasion is person-variable. While it’s essential to get a good understanding of the standard apologetic arguments to be effective, keep in the mind the limitations of a memorized technique or a series of prepared steps. The goal of apologetics is not merely to produce a sound argument or a set of answers but to persuade the person – and not every sound argument or answer will be equally persuasive to the same person. Consider arguments as tools. Some tools work better at some jobs than others. If one doesn’t work, be willing to try something different. Learn to treat the inquirer as an individual with their own particular needs and develop an apologetic that is geared toward those needs. Without relating our answers to the individual’s experience and concerns, our apologetic won’t be unintelligible, much less convincing.

2. Seek a conversation, not a presentation. Aim for a two-way dialogue rather than a one-way sales pitch. Information will have a greater impact face-to-face, where the receiver is an active participant. Our message will always be filtered through our audience’s culture, life situation, perceived needs, vocabulary, etc, and unless we’re willing to be patient and clarify ideas or answer questions when necessary, we’re likely to be tuned out or misunderstood. As Christians, we’re also communicating what can be strange and uncomfortable concepts, and sometimes non-Christians need to hear parts of our message, take time to digest them, and then hear more later.

3. Ask questions and learn to listen. This is your most important tool. Listening is how we encourage dialogue, demonstrate respect, and build relationships. It requires humility, an openness to learning and the possibility of revising our ideas – even while maintaining a commitment to the truth we do know. Listening and asking questions is also the only way we can understand their worldview and get to know their objections, past hurts with religion, or misunderstandings of the gospel. Find out who their authorities are: the authors, films, tv shows, pundits, and thinkers who represent and inform their worldview. Knowing these things will help you illustrate your arguments and relate the gospel to their priorities and concerns. Some questions that make good starting points: How should life be lived? What do you believe is wrong with life/the world? What do you hope for? What makes life worth living? These will help you get to the bottom of what they believe.

4. Recognize that everyone has worldview commitments, not just Christians. No thinking is done without assumptions. No one is entirely neutral. A person’s view of evidence is affected by her point of view. Even someone who doubts, doubts based on a set of beliefs. And if the inquirer is open to the truth, they must be willing to subject the same level of doubt to their own beliefs (that their doubt is based on) as they are to your views. Always ask of them, what they ask of you, as Craig Hazen has pointed out.

5. Challenge by showing the incompatibility of their existing commitments with their own worldview. Look for deeply held values or convictions that they have in common with Christianity (e.g. confidence in rationality, an outrage at evil and injustice, the desire for freedom, the desire for self-transcendence, objective meaning in life, moral duties, dignity, and beauty, etc).  Affirm those beliefs, but show how a denial of the Christian God does not square with these truths or convictions. How do they account for rationality or the origin of consciousness? How do they explain objective moral duties or human rights? Show how the existence of a good, intelligent, powerful, personal Creator who made humans in His image offers a better explanation of these facts.

6. Recognize the personal cost of embracing Christianity. Many weigh up Christianity on pragmatic grounds. They do not examine it in a detached intellectual way. Emotional, volitional, and other psychological factors all have a role in how we form beliefs (sometimes you can ask questions to gently challenge this resistance:  e.g. “Are you open to truth if it does exist?” “Would you like there to be a God?”). Don’t expect a decision from every encounter. People are much more likely to make their commitment through a long process of mini-decisions. Some will want to try Christianity on, see how it fits their problems or how it works out in real life. Your goal isn’t countable results but faithfulness to Christ. Success, then, is in merely presenting the case for Christ, in the power of the Spirit, as clearly, sensitively, and rationally forceful as possible. God will handle the rest.

Some Resources For Further Study

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Zondervan)

When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics by Paul Copan (Baker Books)

Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ by James W. Sire (Intervarsity Press)

The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever (Crossway Books)

Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman (Kregel Publications)

Bringing the Gospel Home: Witnessing to Family Members, Close Friends, and Others Who Know You Well by Randy Newman (Crossway Books)

One-Minute Answers to Skeptics: Concise Responses to the Top 40 Questions by Charlie H. Campbell (Harvest House Publishers)

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig (David C. Cook)

As 3News and others report, comparing its hot cross buns to Jesus has predictably outraged some Christians. I think this response is misplaced. Outrage and righteous indignation hurt the cause of Christ while letting an apologetic opportunity slip by.

Many Christians seem to be imputing anti-Christian sentiment to Hell’s marketing: as if it were intended to make Christians angry. My sense, though, is that Hell came up with a good marketing idea, and were simply too clueless to recognize how it would be offensive to many of their own customers. I have it on first-hand testimony, in fact, that plenty of people genuinely do not understand, until it is explained to them, how this campaign could offend anyone. No doubt Hell had some inkling that the campaign would be controversial. But I’m not willing to ascribe to malice what can be better ascribed to stupidity.

This cuts across a broader issue. Many people seem to have been offended by this campaign because they assumed it was meant to offend. The assumed intent seems more offensive than the campaign itself. But even if it was a deliberate jab at Christians, why are we so uptight about this kind of thing, considering all the repeated warnings in the Bible about how we will be hated and ridiculed and mocked and persecuted for the name of Jesus? If this is the worst New Zealand has to offer in that regard, shouldn’t we be grateful? Shouldn’t we expect this kind of thing, and praise God that it’s so mild that we can boldly, and without fear, use it as an opportunity for helping more people understand what and why we believe about Jesus. You know, instead of getting our panties in a bunch and confirming everyone’s suspicions that Christians are just a bunch of prissy-prigs with nothing interesting to say?

Mind you, I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t find the ad offensive. Rather, I’m calling them to present their offense to the world in a way that will have a real effect. To rise above petty politics and personal outrage, and to step back and ask: How would Jesus himself see this? How would he respond? Wouldn’t he use it as a touchstone to expound on the gospel for the sake of the lost, rather than just jerking his knees?

We have to maintain some perspective. Is a dodgy Easter ad campaign more offensive to God than legalized prostitution and the killing of unborn children? I doubt it. Maybe to us it seems more urgent, because, you know, he’s our savior and we want to stand up for him. But we should try to keep things in proportion. God is the standard to judge by, not our own personal reactions. So let’s use this “outrage” as an opportunity to present the outrage of the gospel—not our own feelings. Hell is right: Jesus is a limited time offer. Order your salvation today, before this outrageous deal is gone forever.

“Some Christians will begin seeing red just from reading the title of this entry.  They will be angry and annoyed and may even jump up out of their seats.  Therefore, let me say it again:  apologetics is the answer to everything.

Whether it be the rapid decline of the Christian Church in America, the brisk acceptance of homosexual ‘marriage,’ the prevailing and deepening culture of death, the shallow spirituality of many of the Christians who actually remain in the Church- and certainly much of the lack of action- and many other issues can track back to nothing less than disobedience, for the Scriptures themselves command:  “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”  1 Peter 3:15“

Horvath argues that our proclamation of the Gospel has been harmed by an abandonment of an assumption that was central to the witness of the early Christians:

“What is this assumption that the apostles carried with them wherever they went and the unbelieving world they interacted with shared, and generally still tends to share, yet many Christians today have jettisoned?

It is simply this:  that what is objectively true and real in the world requires our assent in mind, body, and soul.

In short, apologetics rejects the relativistic and post-modern notions that we all get to make up our own ‘truth’ as we go.   Apologetics carries with it the assumption that what is described in the Bible really happened.  Jesus, to his very own disciples, appealed to the fact that they themselves had witnessed miracles- that really happened.  The Bereans strove to show that what Paul was saying really happened was really consistent with their Scriptures.  Paul directed Agrippa to investigate what had really happened.  If Jesus did not really rise from the dead, we are to be pitied more than all men.“

Horvath suggests that, in contrast to the early church, we have succumbed to the postmodern denial of both the existence of objective truth and human access to it. This has consequences:

“If you walked around thinking that your articles of faith were in fact nothing more than articles of faith without any grounding in reality, how willing would you be to share your views?   If this is what you thought, how excited would you be to evangelize?  Easily answered:  not very.”

What is his solution?

“Apologetics is the answer to everything- in the sense that knowing what you believe and why you believe it is that which gives you the confidence to act in a society that does not share your values and beliefs.   The notion that the Church should confine itself to ‘spiritual’ issues has more than passing resemblance to the gnostic heresy.    God created ‘earthly’ things, too, and said they were good!  Ah, but is that just an article of faith, or is it an actual truth?

The apologetically minded individual tends to be someone who believes that what he is presenting and defending is an actual truth about the real state of affairs.   Not presenting and defending the Christian faith implies to Christian and nonChristian alike that Christianity is a collection of arbitrary dogmas.  Merely asserting those dogmas accomplishes the same thing.  Defending the Christian faith poorly cements the notion in people’s minds (Christians as well!) that ‘faith is believing what we know isn’t true.’”

You may not agree with everything he says, but it is worth taking the time to read the whole thing.