RAPID RESPONSE REPORT

 

DEFENDING HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

 

1/22/2001 #9

 

Editor: Bill Crouse

 

DEFENDING THE FAITH: Part one

 

Developing the ability to defend the faith is the responsibility of all believers.  In the charter verse about the defense of the faith we are asked to  "...(A)ways be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have..."(I Pet. 3:16).  "To be prepared" means your defense must be thought out ahead of time, not something taken lightly or done "off the cuff."  While all believers are to work at defending the faith, it is also a discipline for specialists.  Just as we are all to be evangelists, some are especially gifted in presenting the gospel to unbelievers.  Defending the faith is therefore, both an art and a science.  The science of defending the faith is known as "apologetics" and is a branch of theology.  In practice it must tied to evangelism.  After all, the goal of apologetics is never to win arguments exclusively, but to be a means for the conversion of the lost.  Apologetics is to evangelism what mathematics is to engineering.  Just as engineers cannot practice their vocation without math, neither can we evangelize effectively without apologetics.  It is through apologetics that we learn how to properly frame our evangelistic appeal to a specific people or culture.  And, a culture is to worldview what clothes are to a body.  Hence the study of anthropology, i.e., man's cultures, and their underlying worldviews, are essential to the success of the defense of the faith.  Missionaries must spend years learning the culture of a group so they can then formulate the gospel in a form in which it can be understood, and, when it is presented, there will invariably be a negative reaction as they will see Christianity as violation of their culture.  This cultural reaction is normal and must be anticipated; this is where the defense comes in.  Is presenting the Gospel in our PM culture so different?  I think not.

 

Since I intend for this to be an on-going discussion in subsequent issues, it is fitting to build a good foundation with a definition of "apologetics."  The one I like the most is:  "Christian apologetics is the discipline wherein an intelligent effort is made to defend before an unbelieving world the truth claim of the Christian faith, specifically its claim of exclusive true knowledge of the living and true God, in a manner consistent with the teaching of Scripture." (from: The Justification of Knowledge, by Robert L. Reymond, p.1)  Every word in this definition is important.  I would call your attention to several items: 

 

1.  Why are we to defend the faith?  Because the Christian faith (worldview) claims to be exclusively true.  A is not non-A.  The law of non-contradiction is just that, a law.  To refute it is to affirm it.  Here's a little more clarity:  We've said this before: if Christianity is true then whatever is not Christianity is false.  This is precisely what does not go over too well in our PM world.  Is that ever an understatement!  If a person lives his life according to a different worldview (other than Christianity) there are consequences in this life and the afterlife.  We are therefore, commanded to preach the Gospel to all mankind because God is not willing that any should perish (II Pet. 3:9)

 

2.  What kind of defense should it be?  Facts and logic are an important of our defense, but as in the definition, we insist on a Biblical defense in keeping with the definition: "in a manner consistent with Scripture."  TO BE CONTINUED

 

WORLDVIEWS IN COLLISION:  i.e., CULTURAL WARS

 

According to writers like James Davison Hunter, cultural wars are the aftermath of PM.  (He is with the Institute of Advanced Studies of Culture.)  Their website is: http://www.virginia.edu/iasc

 

In previous issues, I’ve commented that the two major political parties had become more like full-blown worldviews which explained the intensity of political battles in recent years, and particularly in the last election.  If anything, the wars have intensified and the confirmation hearings of certain nominees for cabinet positions have borne this out.  As we’ve soon learned from the Ashcroft hearings, there is little concern about a Christianity that is kept on the reservation.  As long as you practice your religion in secret and don't apply it in the public square you are accepted as being mature and broadminded.  The press and others were enamored with the candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and they were not at all bothered by the fact that he spoke often of God.  Why? Because when it really came down to the nitty gritty (much to the chagrin of the orthodox rabbis) his conservative orthodox Jewish religious beliefs had very little effect on his public policy positions (abortion, homosexuality, etc.).  One writer www.foxnews.com/views/burns/index.sml)  noted that for someone running for public office it was once an honor to claim to be a Christian.  Indeed, a few states still have laws (un-enforced) making it mandatory!  Some organizations, on the other hand, want a religious litmus test for public service not unlike the Roman Empire where you had to worship the appropriate gods.  Apparently, attorney general nominee, John Ashcroft's statement in a chapel service at Bob Jones University that "We (referring to fellow Christians) have no king but Caesar," disqualifies him!

 

Robert Novak, of the American Enterprise Institute has written quite bit on the subject of Christian involvement in culture (see his The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America, 1986) and we recommend his provocative article in National Review "Religious Pluralism For Liberals, 101.   http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment011501a.shtml

 

In President Bush's inaugural address he expressed his major goal to unite America.  About the time Bush was considering the run for the presidency Gertrude Himmelfarb published One Nation: Two Cultures.  Himmelfarb is an intellectual to intellectuals.  In 1994 she wrote the highly acclaimed On Looking into the Abyss: Untimely Thoughts on Culture and Society.  She is known as a social historian, and is a member of all the elite academic associations.  This book chronicles the descent into PM and does an excellent job of tracing its origins.  It deserves to be on any bibliography of PM.  In One Nation, she spells out the thesis we’ve mentioned above that the political parties now represent two different worldviews.  She argues that America has become two countries:  One, rooted in the 1960's, is hedonistic, individualistic and secular, the other grounded in the 1950's, is puritanical, religious and family-centered.   In the aftermath of the election, The Economist takes another look at her thesis as well as some dissenters such as Alan Wolfe.  This essay is definitely worth downloading and reading.   http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=478570

 

HITHER AND YON

 

Cultural apologetics anyone?  Have a fondness for jazz?  You might be interested in a review of Duke Ellington's biography: Duke Ellington: A Spiritual Biography, by Janna Tull Steed.  The reviewer is William Edgar, professor of apologetics at Westminster Seminary.  The review is found in Books and Culture  http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/web/2001/jan17b.html

Jazz has been the subject of several recent specials on public television, most notably the one by Ken Burns.  You might also be interested in George Will's review of the Burns special http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/A25767-2001Jan5.html

 

The most important purveyor of culture today is without a doubt Hollywood, and hence is the most prominent conduit for PM.  The guys at Spiritual Counterfeits Project (yes, they are still around) have posted some good reviews of recent movies.  To read "Postmodern Movies: the Good, the Bad and the Relative," click here for Part 1:  http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a67a5963a2a.htm

 

It's my opinion that some of the best cultural comment comes from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.  In the past, to read it online you had to have a subscription and a password, but now they have a new website just containing the opinion articles.  This web address is www.opinionjournal.com/index.html

Another financial publication which offers deep insight into cultural trends is Forbes Magazine.  Once a year they dedicate a whole issue to some theme.  Last year this special issue was about the subject of "truth."  These essays are written by some of the brightest minds.  This special issue is dated Oct. 2, 2000, and I recommend trying to find a hard copy if possible.  It's not easy to download all these pages.  We are still looking for a copy ourselves.  If you happen to have one you are finished with we would be delighted to receive it! Hint! Hint! The web address for the articles is:  http://www.forbes.com/archive_index.jhtml?magName=asap&magVolume=&magDate=10/02/2000

 

In issue #6 we alerted you to the great article in Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind."  If you liked the article (or if you went to Wheaton!) you might also be interested in the review by Mark Noll in First Things:  www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0101/opinion/noll.html

It certainly fitting that Noll would review this article after his own book: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

 

Also in #6 we reported about an article in the Dallas Observer about Dr. Marvin Olasky one of President's Bush's informal advisors.  Here's another report from the Globe and Mail.  www.globeandmail.com/gam/International/20010113/UBUSHN.html

There are some inaccuracies in this article.  Olasky was not the founder of World Magazine, That would have been Joel Belz. Olasky is the current editor.

 

For most PM all life is political.  "A few years back, lawyer-journalist Stuart Taylor asked law professor and media mogul Susan Estrich to explain her support for Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas matter and her opposition to Paula Jones in the case of Mr. Clinton.  Her candid answer speaks volumes:  `You believe in principles, I believe in politics.'"  Wall Street Journal

 

Though we must be careful not to laugh at those we seek to win, we have to admit that at times PM are really funny.  "A former professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio resigned in protest amidst death threats and hate mail.  Prior to his departure, the professor had conversed with students who had felt pressured to adopt politically correct views in order to receive passing grades.  In response, he proposed teaching a class on political correctness.  In response to the proposed course, the director of the Women's studies department at BGSU stated `We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech.'" Newsmax

 

Sources

 

Dr. Peter Jones teaches New Testament at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, CA.  He is a recognized authority on Gnosticism.  He has written two books showing this ancient philosophy's continuing influence: The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back, and Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America.  He has an excellent website at:  www.spirit-wars.com

 

Here's another excellent site for its many Bible study and theological sources:  The Virtual Seminary; it's run by Randy Broberg.  www.geocities.com/virtualseminary

 

For Christ and His Kingdom

 

cim@fni.com

 

www.fni.com/cim