Defining away the problem

When Person-x pushes Person-y to the logical conclusion of their proposition (in an effort to change their mind) and it is realized it is unlivable, Person-y cannot simply define the problem away by saying, "that's not what I meant by ___."

1) If a new word was chosen, the argument would still prove unlivable per its retention of the essence of the proposition.

2) If a new meaning of the same word was chosen, thus changing the essence of the proposition, I would venture to say it would probably agree with Person-x.

3) In order to remain intellectually accountable, Person-y must be willing to admit this when it happens, and cannot simply deny it based on the fact that it contradicts his initial proposition. 

4) The goal is truth, and the essence of truth is: what corresponds to reality. It is not a power play, a philosophical game, or a religious manipulation. 

5) The law of bivalence states that each proposition has one of only two truth values: it is either true or false. Thus every proposition is either true or false, based on the truth maker as being: that which corresponds to reality.

6) Truth claims are not personal attacks, and when someone takes it personally, they are revealing their priority is not to discover truth, but to get away with ____.

As of late

Balancing work, school, and what is left of a social life, the blog as finally ended its sabbatical.

Below are 6 papers that have been submitted within the last year. I am aware my sources are not being listed properly, but I do have them should anyone desire to verify or read for additional research. I by no means want to portray plagiarism, or to not respect original authors through giving credit.

In addition to the papers, a simple update;

Classes in Religious Pluralism, Advanced Apologetics, and Theology are currently informing my life, both academically and spiritually. I am being challenged in ways different from every before, as this semester has thus far presented itself quite differently. Honestly, the past year has not been that demanding besides the occasional stress that is alleviated in a day or two. I keep telling myself that these current hardships are making this part of my life more meaningful, because "if it was easy, everyone would do it," right?

These past few months have been characterized by sleepless nights and lots of tears. The pun-reference to Seminary being like a Cemetery for the faith has sadly been personally accurate as of late. As I focus so much on the immutability and goodness of God, I have not rested in His personal nature, and have come to regard him as a Cosmic Brain of which I am becoming an expert. I have been challenged to recognize and deal with this through my Spiritual Formation process. (Through all of this I have actually come to view that class in much less of a cynical attitude. Point for honesty?)

With the hardships this season of life is presenting, I have found myself crying out to the Lord to show me that He is personal. Prayer and thoughtful time spent in Proverbs has been the only source of strength or peace I have received, and this keeps me going back for more.

I am supposed to be thankful for what brings me closer to the Lord, right? I know the Sunday School answer is to focus on His perfect desires and not my immediate selfish desires, but this shift of perspective will require nothing short of a miracle. I am weak.  

Semantic Mysticism

        Epistemology and Apologetics are mutually reinforcing and important
for the evangelistic task given to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). They
are also both foundational in our efforts to mimic Paul in his desire to
become all things to all people in order to win them over (1 Corinthians 9:
19-23). However, one thing Evangelicals must be extremely aware of, is
what Francis Schaeffer calls semantic mysticism. This refers to the idea of words being used without proper regards to their definition. This occurs
when a word is written or spoken according to the whims of the speaker or
writer, rather than according to a proper definition. In conversations
regarding religion generally and specifically, certain words tend to be used
with more of a subjective connotation than an actual definition. We must
be sensitive to recognizing this, and intentional to steer clear of using it
ourselves.
        This essay will explore the relationship between epistemology and
apologetics, and highlight proper semantic understanding as foundational
for both. The scope of this paper is limited to highlighting a few examples
of terms misused in the apologetics and epistemology fields.

Epistemology

        Epistemology is the study of knowledge, defined as justified true
belief. Everyone has a belief system, no matter how justified or
unjustified. What turns this belief into knowledge is its justification and
its correspondence with reality. Many examples have been given by
philosophers through the years of statements which only meet two of
these criteria, such as justified belief which does not correspond to reality,
or belief which happens to be true but is not justified.
        A belief could be held, such as a belief that my sister is at the library
studying. My justification, would be that if my sister has shown herself to
keep her word in the past, and said she was on her way to study in the
library 15 minutes ago, and it takes 10 minutes to get to the library, she
therefore must be at the library studying. However, unknown to me she
has his terrible traffic and is not in the library studying. This justified
belief of mine would therefore not correspond to reality, and therefore I
could not say that I know that she is in the library studying, no matter
how justified I am in my belief.
        A belief could, however, be true but not be justified. A student could
be in the middle of taking a multiple choice test, and come across a
question of which he is uncertain about the answer. He could guess, based on the which letter he has chosen the least, and turn out to be correct. He
believes he is correct, and happens to be correct, however I would argue
that he is not justified in his belief. This would therefore be called simply
true belief.
        The importance for knowledge as opposed to belief is found in the
desire to become conversant with those by which one finds themselves
surrounded, especially for the Christian. When we attempt to argue for
Christianity from religious experience, or simply personal belief, we have
to realize we cannot gain much, if any, ground with our audience. However, when we argue in regards to objective justification and correspondence to
reality for a specific belief that we hold, our audience will be faced with a
decision to affirm or deny reality.

Apologetics

        Apologetics deals with the various arguments regarding various truth
claims. Christian apologetics, specifically, defends the truth-claims of
Christianity. Apologetic methods involve premises which lead to
conclusions. These methods expose justification, or lack thereof, which is
necessary for knowledge. Though these methods may vary, they all appeal
to reality. All would be done in vain if they did not, and hence the truth
criteria for knowledge.
        The discipline of apologetics in the Christian context, serves to show
Christian doctrinal claims as objectively true and rationally compelling.
This stems from a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is
within us (1 Peter 3:15). This will be in regards to logical arguments for
the existence of God, scientific arguments for Creation, the moral
argument for the fall, the historical argument for Jesus death, life, and
resurrection. All of these cases are made in the Bible, but we need to be
able to make a case for it to have the reason for our own presupposition
and to form a common ground with our audience.
        We must realize we need strategies for entering into these
conversations, as most people are already a little defensive and possibly
even annoyed when religion is brought into the conversation. This is where
we can draw on epistemology in our apologetic endeavors. We can
question knowledge in any common belief claim, such as morality, and
show that through the justification which follows there must be a source
outside of ourselves where we get this basic belief. Thus, door for the
conversation has been opened for the eventual sharing the gospel. "The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to
work reliably in the world He created...God created the mine to know
truth."
        God is the only reason or source for basic beliefs, and therefore
these beliefs are a good place to start challenging those who do not
believe in God. Once logic has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can
make logical arguments which cannot be denied. Once history can be
accepted as reliable, we can make strong historical arguments, and the
same is true for morals and science. Apologetics lays out types of
arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology
holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as
knowledge.
        It is here where the importance for a proper semantic structure lies.
All arguments could potentially be made in vain without a structure which
enforces the proper use of words in regards to their actual definition.

Semantic Mysticism

        Semantics are the ways we use words with a given meaning, and
semantic mysticism implies using a mysterious meaning, unknown to the
audience. This happens in every discipline, and is sometimes of little to no
importance. However, there is potential danger that is brought when it
starts spreading to and through religious language, which we are seeing in
our world today.
        When words crucial to Christianity become relative in their meaning,
like knowledge, belief, faith, and truth, everything we say in regards to
Christianity becomes relative. We are therefore preaching an un-Christian
message, in light of the fact that Christianity is intrinsically absolute and
objective. Therefore, proper semantics are of utmost importance in any of
our evangelistic efforts.
        What must be made prior to, and during, any apologetic or
epistemological conversation, is an agreement on how words are being
used. A constant defining of words rather than just quickly using them and
moving on, is of utmost importance if we wish to be understood.
Many times, regardless of proper definitions, people use words to
connote whatever they please, leaving their audience unaware and
vulnerable to false teaching. Other times, people use words properly but
are unaware their audience hears these words with a different meaning,
based on a variety of factors.
        We let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when
armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read, we have left
them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film
and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall
secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They
do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward
them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to
words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their
intellects....We have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence
can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it.
        As was stated in the introduction, certain words succumb to semantic
mysticism more often than others. In conversations regarding apologetics
and epistemology, more often than not words such as knowledge, belief,
faith, and truth are used however the author sees fit. Each of these words
will be examined light of their proper definitions and examples of how they
are actually used.

Knowledge

        The term knowledge, briefly addressed above, is defined as justified
true belief, (from hereon JTB). This term is one blatant example of
semantic mysticism in the disciples of apologetics and epistemology. Many
people have uttered "I know this" and "I know that" when in fact they
know nothing of the subject about which they are speaking. They are
conflating the terms know and believe, and when this is done it can easily
lead people astray. The phrase "I know God does not exist" could lead
someone astray because they assume the term know implies justification,
when in reality this statement is simple a false belief (because this is not
knowledge at all). The Bible acknowledges the reality of false teachers and
has very strong words for them.
        But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1)
        As evangelicals, we do not want to swing to the opposite side of this
and try to persuade people based on simply true belief, just so they can
enter the world of ideas unequipped. Douglas Groothuis has said
"evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner," meaning that a
proper working knowledge system must be in place for Christian truth to be accepted as knowledge.
        We must also continually challenge ourselves to have reasons for our
beliefs, otherwise there is nothing that sets us apart from any other
person arguing from religious experience which may in fact contradict
Christianity. The term belief provides another example of a word often
misused.

Belief

        Knowledge is reduced to belief when it is either lacking justification
or correspondence to reality. However, many times the two terms are still
conflated in their use. W. Jay Wood has said "that behind many objections
to religious belief is an epistemological viewpoint detailing... what
requirements a person must satisfy in order to have knowledge about
anything," and continues to conflates religious belief with knowledge
throughout the rest of his epistemology book.
        A misunderstanding of the concept of belief could also lead one to
misinterpret Scripture. In Acts we read that "believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31), but then we read in James that
"even the demons believe and shudder" (James 2:19). Is it then mere
belief that saves us? This would require more of a Lexicon word study, but
many people do not follow up with this step. They hear in Church "believe
in Jesus," and they have a conversation with someone that does not
believe in him. This Church-goer has been told that belief is what saves
them, so why would they appeal to objective knowledge in the reality of
Jesus in order to have a conversation with this unbeliever?
        What must be stressed, is that beliefs are only worth having if they
do in fact correspond to reality, which would become known through a
process of justification, and would therefore lead to knowledge. However,
when this Church-goer tells his non-believing friend to just believe, his
friend probably hears this in terms of subjective personal belief, which is
not how Scripture was using the term in the verse from where the preacher
originally taught.
        As illustrated, semantic mysticism has exponential negative effects.
Just how the term belief is easily reduced to meaning subjective personal
belief, so has the term faith been reduced. To this term we now turn our
attention.

Faith

        The write has defined the term faith as "œevidence in things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). However, many times in contemporary Christian culture
the term is used in place of what atheists refers to as "God of the Gaps."
This accusation implies that whenever Christians find themselves unable
to understand or explain something, they throw out their good Sunday
School answer: God! Atheists are able to see this for what it is, a blind
leap of faith, and so should we. What an insult to a knowable father who
has created us in his own image with minds to affirm his generous
revelation of Himself. What is more, we are never called to make a blind
leap of Faith.
        Soren Kierkegaard is a prime example of a believer using the term
faith without proper regards to its definition. Instead of faith being used
to connote belief inspite of things unseen, because of evidence,
Kierkegaard uses the term to imply complete blind leap. He says that "the
transition to the Christian mode of life is not by means of intellectual
apprehension" and that "Christian faith is against understanding."  He
"protests against the inference that Christian faith must be subordinated
eventually to scientific and philosophical knowledge." His use of the term
in obvious contradiction to scripture is evident in his writing that "instead
of faith we have substituted assurance about faith."
        An accusation might be given that evidence and reason does not
leave room for faith. I would disagree, in light of the following example. As
an agnostic physicist, cosmologist and astronomer, Robert Jastrow has
said in regards to creation that "now we see how the astronomical
evidence supports the biblical view." He also gives an insightful quote
about a scientist who "has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is
greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." However, in spite of the evidence, Jastrow does not make a
personal decision to acknowledge where it has led him.
        I submit, therefore, that sufficient evidence does not discount the
need for faith. Rather, it is necessary in order for faith to not be blind.

Truth

        I have found it interesting, that the phase "absolute truth" is spoken
or written as a concept different from "truth," but the idea of truth implies
absoluteness. I guess this has become necessary in a postmodern culture,
and is extreme people take in order to make sure they are being
understood properly. However, we need to go the extra step to make sure
that the word truth, standing alone, has not lost its definition. We must
replace it with words such as perspective, or belief, when they would be
more appropriate.
        Francis Schaeffer's insight that "the present chasm between the
generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the
concept of truth," rings true today. "Young people today live in a
generation that no longer believes in the hope of truth as truth," and I
would submit that this is because of the postmodern overtones in our
world today.
        Richard Rorty has arrogantly uttered that "for the pragmatist
[postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to
reality," and this lie is what people are fed today. However, is
correspondence to reality not the most proper definition for truth? Implied
by his preface "for the pragmatist," are definitions even subjective?
This is precisely the problem of semantic mysticism. "Rorty argues
that truth means, not what corresponds to the facts, as is the dominant
definition of truth in Western philosophy." This is really a phenomenon,
that what is accepted as the dominant definition of a word can simply be
disregarded and replaced according to subjective whims.

Conclusion

        In light of the fact that humans have an incredible capacity for
deception, we cannot rely on contexts to define words, because of the
potential risk of perjuring ourselves, our witness, or being led astray by
others. This is eternally significant in our evangelistic efforts.
As was shown above, it seems that semantic mysticism only
functions as long as postmodernism reigns. We must never forfeit the fight
against postmodernism or for exposing semantic mysticism.
        The subjective word games inhibit knowledge, and therefore are
necessarily opposed to any epistemology efforts. Epistemologist should be
the last ones to succumb to the tragedy of semantic mysticism, but this is
not the case as shown above.
        Apologists as well, in their efforts to justify Christian knowledge
claims, need to remain highly aware of how this concept necessarily
impedes any of their efforts in arguing or evangelizing.

ON APOLOGETICS: A CASE FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

I may or may not have discovered (after I finished this paper) that I was did not, in fact, required to write it. Oh the importance of reading the syllabus. 

     The  apostle Peter tells us in his epistle "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). In the various theological disciplines available to Christians today, apologetics serves as a way to become equipped to know and articulate this reason. "Jesus himself was an extraordinary source for the apologetic impulse in Christianity."
     This essay will serve to present a further case for Christian apologetics. This will be done by by defining, presenting and responding to critiques, and by showing the application for evangelism today. The goal of this essay is to show that apologetics is an appropriate endeavor for the believer to pursue in order to become an equipped, competent, and faithful witness to Jesus Christ.

Apologetics

         We are told in the epistle found at the end of the New Testament, to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people" (Jude 1:3b). Another word for contend is defend, and "essentially apology means a defense." Specifically, Christian apologetics is to make a defense for the doctrinal claims of the Christian faith. "There can be no valid apologetics that does not begin and end in theology."
     "The very word would suggest that anapologia is the primary narrative testament of faith," reiterating what was stated before from 1 Peter.   Apologetics naturally incorporates reason, and thus seeks "to integrate faith and reason."
     Though the proximate goal of a Christian apologist is to provide reasons, grounds, evidences, and arguments for the claim that the Christian worldview is at least as rational as all the worldviews with which it competes, the ultimate goal is to enable people to thrive in God's garden as fully mature "plants" that give glory to God by flowering in the way that God intended.
     The goal of apologetics is to communication "the present generation in terms that they can understand." Therefore, "contemporary apologetics must be presuppositional, rational, relational, and plausible."  One contemporary apologist had four key facts to his theology of apologetics, "the centrality of truth, the need for fair argument, the comparison of worldviews and the art of persuasive communication." We must also "learn to artfully manage the details of dialogue."

Critiques

     "Resistance to apologetics has arisen not only from outside the Christian Church, however, but also from within it."  There is something wrong when people within the church begin to ignore ertain verses which command us to love the Lord our God with our mind (Luke 10:27). The main claim that critiques of apologetics rest on, rest on a misinterpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians that his message and preaching "were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power" (1 Corinthians 2:4). However, later in 2 Corinthians Paul tells us that "since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others" (2 Corinthians 5:11).
     Other "problems of plausibility for Christianity have been created by such factors as conflicts with science and a history characterized by racism, sexism, environment degradation, religious persecution, and imperialism."   Those who would recognize these factors as hindrances for Christianity, swing to a side of tolerance and compromising which is equally inhibits a proper understanding of the gospel.

Response

     What must be said initially is that any critique of using apologetics, is employing their own apologetic for their conviction. The "moment one tries to share an enthusiasm with someone else or commend an idea to another person one has entered the realm of apology."  Once this has been acknowledge, all "who accepts reason as a guide must be consistent in following where it leads." A crucial step each person must take is "detach oneself from introspective speculation in order to arrive at unbiased logical analyses."
     In response to certain critiques based on Colossians, that we should see to it that no one takes us captive by philosophies which are according to human wisdom (Colossians 2:8), "we must not allow the doctrine of human depravity to eclipse the biblical significance of the imago Dei."  Rather, we should insist that "reason is a friend to faith."  Without reason, faith would be blind, which is not how the author of Hebrews would define faith (Hebrews 11:1). "The raising of questions and the pursuit of truth constitute the only alternative to blind faith and self-delusion."
     In light of the fact that "the Church's central claims are no longer seen as binding on all persons [but] rather, the Catholic worldview is reinterpreted in terms of opinion," we must acknowledge we there is a specific apologetic task staring us in the face.   "The rise of, what has been called, 'the new atheism', and the increasing secularization of Western society has made the need for a contemporary, reasoned defense of Christian belief and practice a matter of urgency."
     Apologists have to duty to show the Christian faith "to be far more reasonable and consistent than other competing worldviews."  The alternative is heartbreaking. "It is anguishing to witness young people jettison the faith."  Therefore, "doctrinal instruction, apologetic instruction, and ministry experience will help adolescents grown in their understanding of faith."
     We must also "recognize the complex and elusive chain of events that brings us to the act of faith" in order to properly understand our specific apologetic calling.  One of the most important factors existing within this chain of events is in regards to the concept of truth. To this idea we now turn our attention

Truth

     Concerning apologetics, "the first challenge is simply that of understanding our society."   In the society in which we live, we experience overtones of postmodernism which implies relativism. "In the postmodern age, the apologetic task must first establish the objective, absolute nature of truth and the essential reliability of reason before a comparison of truth claims can be fruitful." J. Schutz has claimed that "because we are compelled by the unchanging and universal truth of the gospel, Christians need to work out a revised method for presenting that gospel to a world that has lost its grasp of the nature of truth."
     Each believer, and every person for that matter, must initially have a gasp on the notion of truth before once can proceed in any conversation. "We cannot believe such [truth claims] if we are not first committed to the truth enterprise itself."  This specific question of the nature of truth "is one of the most important questions in apologetics."
     Historically, "Christian apologetics has been preoccupied with the question of the truth of Christianity."  That is, are Christian doctrine claims objective, ultimate, and absolute? When addressing this question, we must notice that the fact "that there is an apologetic element in the New Testament cannot be denied."   This "apologetic is essentially an apologetic of the truthfulness of the Christian religion, and consequently presumes the theistic system of the Old Testament."
     After we are convinced of the truthfulness Christianity offers, we are commanded and compelled to share this life-saving and life-giving information. This process is known as evangelism. To this process we now turn our attention.

Evangelism

     Stephen Bullivant has commented that "evangelization is an urgent and daunting task for the Church today."   One of the reasons for this, is that for so long relational evangelism was "the key to successful youth ministries; but today apologetics is gaining new traction."   If this is the case, we need to have means for learning apologetics, and encouragement for doing so.
     In promoting apologetics, we must never raise it any higher than the other apologetic disciplines. We must humbly agree that "the evangelist preaches the gospel, and the apologist defends it, but it is God who enables it to take root in a human soul and to yield the fruit of confident Christian commitment."  As Glenn Siniscalchi has recommended, we should "began with establishing God's existence, the human need for God, and then argue for the historical credibility for Jesus' divinity."
     "There is a dynamic movement of the intellect toward Infinite Being necessarily inscribed in every act of knowing." Therefore, every apologetic conversation should naturally lead to an open door for sharing the gospel. "Apologetic activity is built into the foundations of the apostolic witness."

Conclusion

     "Both the theistic and the atheistic explanations of the world involve claims to knowledge."  There are tensions which arise from competing claims to what is true, and one reason for renewing an "interest in apologetics is that apologetics mediatesintellectual tensions."
         As we embrace apologetics, we must remember that "neither human wisdom nor empirical signs were an adequate substitute for the clear proclamation of God's Word."   The Bible presents a truthful compressive account of all of reality. Therefore, "given that the Christian faith has a stable core, the general task of apologetics is now clear enough, to wit, defending that stable core."
        While we humbly acknowledge that "external apologetics will not convert nonbelievers;  Christian theology tells us that only the Holy Spirit can do that," we also breathe a sigh of relief in light of God's sovereignty.   Louis Markos has said that "just as it is not the doctor but the drug prescribed by the doctor that heals the patient, so it is the gospel itself."
     As was shown earlier, the Christian who adopts such a Bible-centered apologetic, however, must prepare himself for intense criticism, even from fellow Christians.  In spite of this, we must remember that "the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Bibliography 

Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland. To Everyone an Answer: A Case         for the Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Blakkolb, D. “Apologetics for the Next Generation. Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method:         Analyzed, Critiqued, and Defended.†Master’s thesis, Denver Seminary, 2002.

Burson, Scott R., and Jerry L. Walls. C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New         Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time. Downers Grove: InterVarsity         Press, 1998.

Davison, Andrew. Imaginative Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy, and the Catholic Tradition.         Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Dembski, William A. and Jay Wesley Richards. Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the         Challenges of Theological Studies. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Green, R. “Developing individuative-reflective faith in adolescents through doctrinal and         apologetic teaching and ministry experience.†Master’s thesis, Denver Seminary, 1994.

Guarino, Thomas. “Apologetics, Unapologetically.†Review of A History of Apologetics, by         Avery Cardinal Dulles.First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life,         March 1, 2006.

Hanna, Mark M. Crucial Questions in Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Horne, Brian. “Imaginative Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy, and the Catholic Tradition.†        Review of Imaginative Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy, and the Catholic Tradition,         by Andrew Davidson. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, July         27, 2012.

Imbert, Tannick. “The End of Reason: New Atheists and the Bible.†European Journal of         Theology 22 (2013): 50-64.

Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics.Downers Grove:                InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Lundquist, M. “The Apologetic of C.S. Lewis as an Art and a Science.†Master’s thesis, Denver         Seminary, 1958.

Markos, Louis. “Heart at Work.†Review of Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and         Skeptics Find Faith, by Alister E. McGrath. Touchstone, January 1, 2013.

Norton, Christ. “The Return of Reasons: Apologetics makes a comeback in youth ministry.†        Christianity Today 55 (2011) 15.

Quinn, Philip L. “Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today.†Review ofHumble         Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today, by John G. Stackhouse Jr.Journal of Religion,         October 1, 2003.

Ramm, Bernard. “The Apologetic of the Old Testament: The Basis of a Biblical and Christian         Apologetic.†Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 4 (1958): 15-20.

           . Types of Apologetic Systems: An Introductory Study to the Christian Philosophy         of Religion. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1953.

Rausch, Thomas. “A History of Apologetics.†Review of A History of Apologetics, by Avery         Dulles.Theological Studies, September 1, 2006.

Reid, J. K. S. Christian Apologetics. : Hodder and Stroughton, 1969.

Rickard, G. “The Burden of Proof Between Theism and Atheism.†Master’s thesis, Denver                        Seminary, 1999.

Schutz, J. “Philosophical and Apologetic Issues in Postmodernist Epistemology.†Master’s                thesis, Denver Seminary, 1997.

Siniscalchi, Glenn B. “Postmodernism and the Need for Rational Apologetics in a Post-Conciliar         Church.†Heythrop Journal 52 (2011): 751-771.

Stackhouse, John G. Jr. Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today. New York: Oxford         University Press, 2002.

Taylor, James E. Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian Commitment. Grand Rapids:         Baker Academic, 2006.

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. “Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith: Part II: Christian         Apologetics and the Divine Solution.†Bibliotheca Sacra 134 (1977): 195-202.

Ravi Zacharias on Religious Pluralism

{This post serves as a follow up to a previous post}

Ravi Zacharias on Religious Pluralism

        Ravi Zacharias is a contemporary apologist whose Indian background makes him especially suitable for dealing with certain subjects. Christian apologists run into many worldview challenges, among which lies Religious Pluralism. This essay will serve to examine how Ravi Zacharias deals specifically with religious pluralism in his apologetic endeavors.

Ravi's background

        Ravi grew up in India surrounded by a prevailing sense of religious pluralism. Though he was raised in the Church, he still questioned fundamental Christian claims. He wrestled with verses like John 14:6 which say that Jesus is the only way to the Father, because "every word of that statement challenged the fundamental beliefs of the Indian culture from which" he came.
        Ravi wrestled himself into an inner turmoil of which "no one who knew [him] would have ever suspected the depths of emptiness within... [he] did not know if answers to [his] deepest hungers actually even existed."  He wondered how he "would ever break free to breathe the fresh air of a life unshackled."
        Ravi did not encounter Jesus until the age of seventeen after an attempted suicide, and consequently made a commitment to serve Him. "How that happened in a culture that is rigorously pantheistic and (at least on paper) religiously all-encompassing is a miracle in itself."
As Ravi grew in his understanding of Christianity and his relationship with the Lord, "the very pursuits that at one time brought so much inner heartache" became now for him the transcending delight of his heart.   He is now "determined to help others make that same discovery," because as he found, "outside of God, life is utterly meaningless."  

Ravi's conviction for apologetics

     Ravi recognized the key role that apologetics plays in evangelizing and explaining the truth claims of Christianity. He also recognized that "he sharp difference between Western creeds such as Christianity and Islam, which tend to be exclusive [is that] Eastern religions that stress pluralism" and that in light of this, "some eastern religions, such as Hinduism, view proselytizing [as] a form of oppression."
     He has been able to compassionately engage with others in a way that does not even hint at oppression, and has therefore served as an exemplary model for engaging with and evangelizing people of a pluralistic persuasion.
     "Christian apologetics is the task of presenting a defense of the person and the message of Jesus Christ." He understood and embraced apologetics as a way to start with where the audience is,"  and therefore mimic what Paul in his desire to "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22).
     Along with Paul's writings, he was also convicted by Peter's writing to "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). In his endeavors to respond to Peter's teaching, he was shocked to receive attacks from Christian fideists for what he was doing. "What I did not anticipate was having to give a defense of why I was defending the faith."   He did not give up, but rather discovered that "apologetics is a subject that ends up defending itself,"  and thus he continued in his apologetic efforts. "We are fashioned by God to be thinking and emotional creatures. The emotions should follow reason, and not the other way around."
     He was convicted that "apologetics is seen before it is heard,"  and saw the necessity to live out the truth claims we as Christians are preaching. He saw the danger of letting our efforts become more about our success and that we can become "so eager to pull in the net that we have failed to understand why we are pulling it and for whom!"
     We must never lose sight of the bigger picture: that these are kingdom endeavors for God, and not for our own selfish desires to be right. Christians should be experiencing inner true spirituality, which will naturally have external results. This must be first and foremost before their witness will be accepted by others.

Religious pluralism

        Religious pluralism is a concept which can potentially pose as a stumbling block for understanding and accepting the Christian worldview. It can be used and understood in a philosophical sense or simply as a description of an overarching culture, both of which serve as "distortions hindering the hearing of the gospel."
     Philosophically, religious pluralism entails pantheism, which implies that all religions are one and that they eventually lead to the same place.Francis Schaeffer has wittingly called pantheism, "paneverythingism," because the suffix theism is misleading in light of what pantheism actually entails.
     Descriptively, religious pluralism can simply connote a postmodern culture, where many religions, though conflicting and contradictory, can all be accepted at the same time on the basis of relative truth.
     Ravi deals with both pantheism and postmodernism, showing that the claims of theism are both strong and valid for the mind to espouse and the life to embrace. "While man may own religion at the level of meaning [through forms of religious pluralism], he often disavows it at the level or reasoning."  Both pantheism and postmodernism will be examined separately.

Pantheism

     "The dizzying plethora of religious pluralism has led many to believe that no religion can claim to be the only way of salvation."   Thirty-six percent of born-again teenagers believe, "Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and all other people pray to the same God, even though they use different names for their God," and another thirty percent agree, "it does not matter what religious faith you follow because all faiths teach similar lessons."
     Pantheism has clearly become the worldview from which the Christian faith is being viewed for these teens. Should the Christian faith not necessarily entail a Christian worldview as well? Ravi is convicted that it should, and this has led part of his motivation for taking on pantheism.
     A common pantheistic metaphor refers to 3 blind men examining an elephant. One examines the tail, one examines the trunk, and one examines the leg. They all come to different conclusions as to what the whole object is based on the particular part they are examining. Pantheism applies this conclusion to religion, stating that we can each only know part of what is true. Ravi insightfully tears this metaphor apart by showing that there is, in fact, an elephant. He shows that the idea of stating that we cannot know the truth, is implying that someone does in fact know what it is and that we have not got it right yet. Each conclusion of the blind men, that they are feeling a rope, a snake, or a tree trunk, is in fact false. They are not each partially true as the pantheist would have one believe.

Truth

     The heart of postmodernism rest on a misunderstood concept of truth, and this specific concept must be initially examined before postmodernism can be properly understood. "Truth by definition excludes."   It rests on a notion of antithesis.  Truth is defined by what corresponds to reality. There is not absolute or objective truth as opposed to simply truth. Truth entails both absoluteness and objectivity. Ravi has eloquently quipped that "if truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true?"
     Though Ravi does a good job at articulating his reflections on truth, both cases for the essence of truth and against the idea of relative truth, people today accept a short-sighted version of relativity which accommodates religious pluralism, and produces a postmodern society.

Postmodernism

     Postmodernism states that truth is simply relative, and to each his own. However, as shown above, the idea of relativity contradicts the concept of truth, being defined as what corresponds to reality. Relative truth would then necessarily imply more than one reality. Ravi recognizes that "our openness, particularly to any ideology or belief system, may be our undoing."
     His job, and every believer;, is cut out for him due to people like Richard Rorty who utter such statements as "for the pragmatist [postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to reality."   However, Ravi states that "truth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a pretended tolerance. All religions, plainly and simply, cannot be true."   This is because, "every religion, without exception, has some foundational beliefs that are categorically non-negotiable and exclude everything to the contrary."  They all entail "an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose; every religion at its core is exclusive."  
     Though "people are equal, ideas are unequal. Let ideas be pit against each other."   Each idea or truth claim must be examined in light of correspondence to reality, and cohesion, that is whether or not it can be lived out consistently. As Ravi says, "one had better take his or her belief system to the scrutiny of truth."
     Christianity corresponds to reality, and is the only cohesive belief system which can be lived our consistently. The doctrinal claims of Christianity, all of which as absolute and exclusive, will be examined next.

Absolute claims of Christianity

     In light of the reigning overtones of religious pluralism in our culture, "the Christian faith is portrayed as some kind of...hate filled, judgmental, exclusionary and ideationally unfit dinosaur for or pluralistic times." In light of what has been shown above, that every religion is in fact exclusive, why is it that Christianity is the only faith portrayed this way?
     This is nothing new. "The apostles asserted that Christ alone is the truth in the midst of a world that is more religiously diverse than any we have known in the West until recently."  Ravi has said that to bring "the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ into this mix was [and is] to put oil into water." However, we must remain intentional to not blend, for if the essence of the message changes it can be compromised, and when we give up all substance of the Gospel to win people over, we must ask ourselves what we are winning them over, to?
     Ravi says that "if one can show that it is not one culture against another but one will against God, the truth sinks in deeply." I think this is a necessary mindset to engage with the pluralistic society in which we live in for the purposes of evangelism. We must acknowledge that it cannot be the intolerant nature of Christianity which is hindering people from accepting Christ, because as shown above this is intrinsic to any religious claim. Rather, we must realize there is spiritual battle which hinders some people from thinking clearly and recognizing the God of the Bible for who He is and what He's done.

Conclusion

     "For communication to be effective, especially in matters as life-defining as the gospel message, truth and relevance are the two indispensable winds on which is it borne."
     "Conveying the gospel in such settings demands protracted commitment of time and willingness to even to round in circles till the Holy Spirit lifts the veil and the light shines into darkness." After all, "only the power of the Holy Spirit can take truth and gently reveal the error of an ingrained way of thinking."
     As Douglas Groothuis has stated, "evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner,"  implying that there must be a proper framework in place before the gospel can be accepted for what it is. "When Christians as well as others adopt the view that religion in general is good and no one religion should claim that it alone offers truth and salvation, then the biblical worldview will not be taken seriously." "Even Jesus waited for the appropriate time before getting to the demands of the gospel message. The truth is that many a heart needs this preparatory time before the seed is planted."   Without this preparatory time, even the most powerful apologetic for Christianity will be ignored by anyone who simply  accepts all religions as equally spiritual.
     We must remember that even within the church, "there are silent doubters in our midst."  We must not reserve combatting religious pluralism for our interactions with the secular world. Rather, let us present within our church how biblical claims are incompatible with any form of religious pluralism and joyfully proclaim how wonderful it is to have found the truth and express thanksgiving that with it brings an all fulfilling personal relationship with the revealer of truth. We can then confidently engage with the religious pluralist, knowing that all truth is God's truth, and that the very concept of truth itself is a great place to start the conversation. 

Bibliography

Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002.

Zacharias, Ravi. Beyond Opinion. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

Zacharias, Ravi. To Everyone an Answer: A Case of the Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.

Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who Is There. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Barna, George. Generation Next: What You Should Know About Today's Youth. Ventura: Regal, 1995.

Zacharias, Ravi. Is Your Church Ready?: Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Rorty, Richard. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1982.

Zacharias, Ravi. Is America Abandoning God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOEAdROFUY&feature=player_embedded.

Wells, David. No Place for Truth, Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993

Groothuis, Douglas. Class Lecture, Denver Seminary, January 1, 2013.

Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism. Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011.

“Jesus Among Other Gods.” Review of Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. Publishers Weekly, July 10, 2000.

Jones, Timothy. “Reaching the ‘Happy Pagans’: Interview with Apologist Ravi Zacharias, Christianity Today. November 14, 1994.

Epistemic Foundations

EPISTEMIC FOUNDATHIONS
     In my experience, epistemology and apologetics are two terms which most people meet with confusion regarding their definitions and function in everyday life. They are prematurely labeled as concepts only for the academic, instead of being acknowledged for how each works within every single person.        

     In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives the evangelistic task to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). We have great examples throughout the New Testament of first century Christians, such as Paul, responding to this very task. Considering that “our modern secular world is much like the pagan world of the Apostles…it would behoove us to consider seriously their defense of the faith as the proper model for ours.”
     Not only does a proper understanding and use of apologetics and epistemology significantly aid in the task of evangelizing, but it is a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). This verse causes tension in the lives of certain fideists whom would like to deny the positive role of reason in the Christian life. At best, they would consider reason unnecessary, and at worst they would consider the use a reason a way of hindering the Holy Spirit.
     As believers, we must never diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in bringing repentance, however “even if arguments and reasons are insufficient to produce biblical faith, that doesn’t imply that they are irrelevant.” This essay will serve to define, stress the importance, and explore the relationship between both the disciplines of epistemology and apologetics. 

Foundationalism

     Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, however much ink has been spilled in defining what knowledge actually is. The most commonly accepted definition of knowledge, and how the word will be used throughout the rest of this essay, is justified true belief. 

     Everyone has a belief system, this seems rather obvious. We all hold certain beliefs, though most differ in either context or tenacity of how the belief is held. Belief systems are held together in a variety of ways, and this section will argue that the foundationalist system is the most appropriate.
     Foundationalism is a belief system of which justification is found by correspondence with reality. This is shown through a structure of which certain beliefs are justified based on previously justified beliefs, through means of deduction, induction, and abduction. At the foundation of this structure lies basic beliefs, which cannot be justified by means other than their obvious correspondence with reality. Included in this foundation would be certain truths such as mathematical truths, things that are true by definition, incorrigible mental states, and laws of logic.
     The laws of logic are particularly interesting, because they cannot be denied without at the same time assuming them. For example, for one to argue that the law of non-contradiction is false, they are invoking the law of non-contradiction to try to make their point that this law contradicts what is true. Same is true of the law of identity. By someone attempting to argue that the law of identity is not true, they are assuming the law of identity by implying that this law is not the same as the absence of this law. “Logic is a transcendental condition for knowledge.”
In addition to foundationalism, another type of system which some subscribe to is the coherence belief system, stating that a justification is found solely within the cohesion of the beliefs. This system is worth some reflection, because theoretically, a Christian could subscribe to this system and be correct, because we know that the Christian worldview is the only consistent, coherent, and applicable livable system. Francis Schaeffer even encourages this as a strategy when he advises we push people to the logical conclusion of their beliefs in order to show the do not properly cohere with how the person lives on a daily basis. However, cohesion is more of an observation of our beliefs, rather than the reason why we belief. Cohesion is a necessary condition; however it is not sufficient because its justification does not rely on correspondence with reality. 

     Therefore, I submit that foundationalism is the best system, but it must necessary cohere. As we form our structures with proper justification and correspondence with reality, we are also forming common ground with can be shared with the unbeliever, due to the objective nature of our justification.
         Knowledge presupposes a knowable world, and this shows that there is a knowledge source existing outside of ourselves. The door is wide open for sharing the gospel, because God is the only way we can make sense of any of this. “The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to work reliably in the world He created...God created the mind to know truth.”

Cumulative Case Apologetics

     Just as there are different epistemological methods, there are different approaches to apologetics, including the evidentialist strategy, the presuppositionalist strategy, the experientialist strategy and a classical or cumulative strategy. The cumulative strategy draws off of the former three as a way of seizing every opportunity to make Christ known. Due to the fact that every argument can be used to help remove intellectual road blocks from the mind of the unbeliever, I do not see a reason why we should not utilize each strategy.

     The cumulative case strategy consists of creating various lines of evidence pointing to a triune God, drawing off of various angles and justification strategies. The strategy is to make an over determined case for the Christian Worldview, so that even if one or two points are not be accepted by the unbeliever, the case is still very strong and by far a better explanation than anything else the world has to offer. “Christian faith alone offers the solid, empirical, historical evidence of its truth.”  The cumulative case is basically a “giant abductive argument.”
     Apologetic arguments consist of premises which lead to conclusions. It can be seen that this process is very similar to the justification process in epistemology.  Both epistemology and apologetics seek to find truth, and it can be said that certain apologetic arguments are the very justification which epistemology relies on to turn true belief into knowledge. Apologetics also, in the negative use, exposes lack of justification when other worldviews claim to have knowledge.

Conclusion

     As Christians, we must take seriously the task given to us by the very person of Jesus Christ, and strive to do this the best we can. We must not create a false dichotomy between the role of reason and the role of the Holy Spirit in this take. “Once we start denying principles of reason we make revelation impossible.”
We also must not make the category mistake between epistemology and soteriology. We are never claiming that knowledge along gives us a reconciled relationship with God, however we do affirm that knowledge would appear necessary for the believer to respond to the task of evangelism. We need to be able to make a case our own presuppositions in order to form a common ground with our audience.  We can “functional skepticism as a pruning knife” is our efforts to seek and become articulate in truth.
     Logic is an appropriate place to start. Once it has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can make logical arguments which cannot be denied, our audience will be faced with a decision to affirm or deny reality. Apologetics lays out types of arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as knowledge.

Theory Of Culture

Theory of Culture

        The concept of culture brings many ideas to the forefront of the mind. Some might think of examples of specific heritages or people groups displayed through foods or styles. In this sense, people travel the world to experience other types of cultures. There are aspects to culture, in addition to these tangible expressions of the culture, which reflect a dominant worldview of a people group. "No man can live without a worldview,"  though this worldview is hardly ever brought into critical focus. "For most of us, the framework of meaning by which we navigate life exist 'prereflectively,' prior to conscious awareness." 
        Culture serves as both a description of this dominant worldview, and a prescription for what worldview will be accepted if logically consistent with culture norms. Through his studies, cultural critique and sociologist James Hunter has concluded that "everything hinges on how we understand the nature of culture." 
        After a short period of reflection, we realize that “culture is in fact a much more complicated phenomenon than we normally imagine."   The essence of it “is found in the hearts and minds of individuals - in what we typically called 'values.'" We express ourselves through forms of entertainment in light of these values, and we create political systems and laws to enforce judgment when these values are compromised. "The government is inextricable from the work of culture."   This essay will serve to examine culture from a political and entertainment standpoint, as well as look at the Christian call and the church today.

Politics

        "The work of world-making and world-changing are, by and large, the work of elites.".  This concept is reflective of a top down approach to changing a culture. This approach implies that regardless of numbers, if social reformers are not in the appropriate institution they will not make the difference they are seeking. One influential appropriate institution, where most of the elites flock, is in fact the political realm.
         "The most visible way American Christianity influences the larger society today is in the political realm."   However, I would argue that by focusing on influence through politics only, we are exercising a way of outsourcing a call given to us in the gospel. “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
Believers think of themselves as individuals first, Americans second, and Christians third. Until that prioritization is rearranged, the Church will continue to lose influence, and biblical principles will represent simply one more option amount the numerous worldviews that Americans may choose from. 

I am not arguing that we forfeit the political realm to the secularists. The values, for which the government exercises its judgment, have their roots in the fact that human beings created in the image of God. When this is not the motivation for coercion, the political realm becomes nothing more than a power struggle. "One of the most startling commentaries on this century is the fact that millions more have died at the hands of their own governments than in wars with other nations—all to preserve someone's power." Therefore we need Christian influence in politics.
[C]hristians have an important role to play in the organization that most people think of as 'government' – the state. Indeed, believers have a Biblical obligation to be involved in civic affairs, since that sphere, no less than the private realm, is subject to God's rule and requires a generous dose of Christian 'salt.'

There needs to be a fine balance between engaging with the political realm all the while remaining faithful to our daily witness with those who are not among the elite.
        In addition to the world of the elites, we also need to examine everyday culture being formed through the world of what lay people experience daily: entertainment.

Entertainment

        I am using the term entertainment to encompass both technologies such as social media, television, and forms of music, and art forms such as paintings and films. All popular mediums have a way of not only interpreting the culture of the day, but also of enforcing the culture of the day. The medium is the message.
        "We have created the illusion that we are on our own because technology has empower us to be self-sufficient." The mediation that occurs when technology is used, only feeds this phenomenal concept of being along together. We walk around with our ear buds in, we interact through social media, and we stream our lectures and sermons, all the while never interacting face to face with people, whether they are artists, teachers, or peers. This runs counter to what the Bible teaches about living in community. First and foremost our relationship with Jesus is to be mediated by no one or no thing, but then we are also called to engage in the church body, discipleship, and our immediate community.
        Not only do certain media serve to disconnect us with external relationships, but they can disconnect us from our internal self. When our communications become only one way, we are able to control what we are exposed to. We do not have to deal with conflict, suffering, vulnerability; we can escape.
        "It seems we bow in submission to Aphrodite every time we turn on the television or read an advertisement or listen to music." Entertainment can be worshipped as a coping mechanism and sort of savior from hurt and discomfort. However, when it is engaged in this way it becomes an idol. God pursues, exposes, and saves. Entertainment involves no relation, it covers up and disguises, and inhibits any spiritual growth by distraction.
        In light of the intrinsic attributes of entertainment that run counter to the Bible, why is it that so many churches compromise in this area? They use worldly methods out of a desire to become relevant, all the while forgetting that the church should be naturally attractive to those who are ready for its message. In addition, the church today, as influenced by a culture of tolerance and acceptance, does not know how to rest content appearing as different. Instead, methods are taken to blend with the world, which necessarily compromise the intrinsic exclusivity and offensive nature of the message of the cross.

The church today

        "Apart from outright illegal jobs like prostitution and drug-dealing, the church today seldom discourages any career path considered by young people or undertaken by adults."  This is entirely appropriate; however, I would argue this is not done all the time by every church. In fact, sometimes it is done within a false dichotomy of viewing jobs that are not blatantly religious as either wrong or neutral.
        "God's intention [is] that human beings both develop and cherish the world in ways that meet human needs and bring glory and honor to him."  Who are we to say that this can only be done through formal religious jobs?
In fact, “Christianity is the only religion that allows for the full expression of the personality of the human being.”  in all fields that are not intrinsically immoral. We are called to apply “human touch to the natural world through the inspiration of God,” Ibid. in all disciplines and vocations.
        We must engage in our fields in a way which is consistent and coheres with our Christian worldview, otherwise we imply either that there are certain areas of life which do not fall under the lordship of Christ, or that consistency and coherence are optional criteria for a worldview. The Bible should be "used as the foundation and the filter"  for examining our fields and our engagement in them, in order to conclude what is appropriate in order for a Christian to remain consistent with their worldview.

Conclusion

        In the second century "Christian intellectuals, not only understood their own theological and biblical tradition, but also had knowledge of the leading ideas of culture." We should today strive to also mimic the men of Issachar who understood their times (1 Chronicles 12:32), in order to faithfully interpret and strategically witness to our culture.
        "Evangelism is not only a means of saving souls but of transforming individuals and, in a roundabout way, the culture."   We must recognize that the conflict underlying which culture is dominant, is between competing worldviews: naturalism and theism, and when we combat the naturalist worldview, the message of the gospel will be properly understood and only then will we see cultural change.
        As individuals in the church, we must remember that in addition to being saved from death, we are saved to a life of holiness and are therefore to never blend with the world. In an effort to not blend, we must also not escape from the culture in which we find ourselves.        
        Church choir voices echo through the air as people sing the hymn line “Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.” How inappropriate is it, that out of a desire to worship our creator we speak of His good creation fading away? We tend to forget, that there will be traces of this earth in the new, and we tend to not acknowledge his general goodness in the world today.
        We are called to cultivate (present tense) the world in which we live. This is done through an effort to interpret, engage with, and transform our culture.

The road trip that changed the world

Sayers and Schaeffer

        Mark Sayers and Francis Schaeffer are both insightful and articulate cultural commentators. They both draw conclusions from their research and observations and show how they apply to worldviews. This essay will serve to show how both of these men engaged with their culture, and will conclude with general principles we can learn and apply in our own engagement with culture today.

Mark Sayers

        In the book, The Road Trip That Changed The World, Mark Sayers gives a historic summary of how the concept of the road was born. He insightfully traces the development with certain cultural features, and shows how the culture of the road had an influence on culture more generally.
        Sayers highlights certain aspects of the culture of the road, which we can affirm are still evident in our culture today. “It was Kerouac’s motif of the road that provided the spark that would ignite the fire of cultural change.”  It all begins with the concept of rights eclipsing duties, which he calls juvenilization. People go on the road as an escape. The destination is neutral, because life has become more about the journey. This is “one of the great values that our contemporary culture holds dear – that life is a journey.”
         He goes on to show that this way of thinking was not always the case. “The first youth generation, the baby boomers, have struggled with the concept of growing up and thus have simply spawned more generations like themselves.”  We’ve seen a “shift from devotion to entertainment, from discipleship to self-actualization.” “After two thousand years as the driving force in the Western heart, soul, and mind, the Church has been replaced by a new power, secularism.”  Not only was the Church replaced by a new power, but we can see influences within the church from secularism. The American Church is no longer “based around devotion and worship, but rather entertainment.” 
What often goes unnoticed is that this entertainment can come in the form of content-neutral spirituality. When the road becomes the lens through which we see scripture, we end up with a type or moral therapeutic deism. “The uncommitted masses… who want to believe that there is a deeper magic in the world, a benevolent deity and an afterlife, and yet who revel in the hedonistic freedom that a secular worldview brings.”
        This chosen dichotomy is “not an intellectual decision; it is a habit of the heart which [is] acquired through osmosis.”   Because religion has not remained unaffected, it “has thus forfeited its role as the interpreter of social order and has become instead a matter of personal preference and choice, something to be adopted and/or discarded privately.”  “The person of the road, whether believer or unbeliever, lives the whole of or at least a majority of their everyday life as a practical atheist.”
        Sayers comments on this tension, in that “humans are contradictory creatures: we like to be logical, but our actions, wants, and desires are a far more confusing and inconsistent affair.” We have a “desire for a life of meaning and yet a desire for individual autonomy.” This individual “sense of autonomy and freedom rules over social cohesion.”
        How do we deal examine was had happened, and is happening, in light of the Bible? Jesus tells the Sadducees, who were attempting to “fuse hip Greek thought with Judaism,” that they were in error (Matt 22:29. We see Biblical examples, such as Abraham and Jesus, who go on the road for the sake of the kingdom, and Sayers helps us to reconcile this with what has been argued above against the road. Abraham “offers us a road of faith, in contrast to our culture’s road of self.”   “We find Jesus living out His ministry on the road…this journey has purpose and a destination.” These are three key concepts; in contrast to culture, for a purpose, and with a destination.
        As believers called to evangelize a culture of the road, Sayers offers that in order “to find our way out of the impasse of the culture of the road, we must again return to our divinely given vocation in the world.” We must remember that “God’s intention was never to aid us in our escape of this planet but rather to transform life here.”  He also insightfully comments that “the culture of the road offers us pleasures and experiences, but they are disconnected, and ultimately they will leave us wanting.” In light of this, we must compassionately engage our world for the sake of Christ. 

Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer deals with similar issues in his book, The God Who Is There. He addresses the anit-intellectualism plaguing our culture, and agrees with Sayers on spirituality and how it “becomes exactly opposite to Christian spirituality.” 
Some of his statements even seem to reference the road. In referencing existentialism, he says that “it does not really matter in which direction you act as long as you act.” He also applies the road philosophy to the canvases in art, in that when ultimate meaning is lost, personal meaning can be created on an individual basis, just as artist present their meaningless paintings.
        Schaeffer highlights the concept of truth, and explains that “the present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth.” Without a notion of antithesis, people have to compartmentalize everything. Schaeffer labels this compartmentalization as upper and lower stories of truth. In the upper story, we have subject, meaningless, personal preferences, and in the lower story we have facts and science. What we see is that when religion became personalized, it left the lower story of truth where it once was, and went into the upper story where meaning is lost. This is larger due to what Sayers had explained in the concept of the road.
However, he does echo Sayers in that the influences from an upper story – lower story distinction are not always made by a conscious decision by each individual. Rather, it is usually happens unconsciously through osmosis. “The tragedy is not only that these talented men have reached the point of despair, but that so many… really do not understand. They are influenced by the concepts, and yet they have never analyzed what is all meant.”
He alludes to the same tension which Sayers has, which causes the division of “the unity of himself, because rationality is a part of every man.” As humans who have been created in the image of God, we share certain communicable attributes with him, one of those being rationality. He encourages his readers to press into this tension and to use it for the sake of evangelizing. “You are facing a man in tension; and it is this tension which works on your behalf as you speak to him.” 
Schaeffer emphasizes that “Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously…These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them?”   We have the good news that we are calling them to “a living orthodoxy which is concerned with the whole man, including the rational and the intellectual, in his relationship to God.”   This is not something that their current worldview can provide. We want to erase the dividing line between the upper and lower story, whereas their current worldview will only reinforce it and therefore reinforce the tension. “Christianity as a system has the [only] answers to the basic needs of modern man.”

Conclusion

        When looking at our current task of engaging with our culture, we can apply many principles from both Sayer’s and Schaeffer’s insight.
        First of all, we must be unwilling to accept a two-story version of truth in our own lives. We must seek to erase this distinction and fight to present Biblical teachings as absolutely and comprehensively true. Only then will be gain credibility to be heard by those embracing a compartmentalized version of truth.
        We must then fight against a culture of the road, by showing that it does in fact leave people wanting. We have something better to call them to, and we should be ready and will to offer it. We should also be willing to do what Schaeffer has called preevagnelizing, when necessary. If we want to present the gospel to someone who will only understand it as an upper story preference, we must first work to show them that this dividing line should not exist.