Christian Apologetics and "Presuppositional Biases"

In a recent exchange over at Clay Jones’ apologetics blog, I was again told that the reason I was not accepting the arguments presented for the resurrection of Jesus was my “presuppositional bias against miracles”. Since that particular article contains over 130 comments, I felt I had said all I could say against the arguments presented, and decided to comment no further. Since the only real response to my arguments was that regarding my “presuppositional bias”, and since most of these kinds of debates eventually come to this charge of “bias”, I thought I would briefly address that issue here.

We have all heard it. Those of us who occasionally engage in online debate have all heard, “you do not believe because of your prepositional bias against the miraculous” at some point. Back when I was a Christian, I heard it from various Calvary Chapel pulpits when the likes of Skip Heitzig or Chuck Missler trained us in Apologetics. They sometimes used the word “worldview” or addressed the issue of the “worldview” of the Christian versus that of the non-Christian. I personally cannot stand the word “worldview”, and only use it now because I know it is a familiar word in the Apologetic lingo. Calvary Chapel pastors and other Christian apologists taught me that unbelievers do not disbelieve the evidence in favor of Christian dogma because of the poor quality of the evidence, but because of their own stubborn will. Since unbelievers were unwilling to accept the existence of miracles, they were therefore unwilling, a priori, to accept the existence of God. Therefore, I was taught to think and argue, rejecting Jesus Christ was not a matter of the Intellect, but a matter of the Will.

After hearing this charge, both as a Christian and as a non-Christian, for literally decades, I have come to the conclusion that this charge is, simply put, a copout from the apologist. It is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying “You need Faith to believe, and without Faith you cannot please God”, and just like the Faith argument, it is a conversation stopper.

From now on, when I am confronted with this charge against me, I will not accept it. I will not agree with the Christian that “we all have biases”, and I will not accept it as a valid point. Arguing against my supposed philosophical predispositions, presuppositions or biases are lazy, presumptuous, arrogant, dishonest, and an admission that there are no sound rational arguments to present.

When a Christian uses this argument against me, they are, in essence, saying that their arguments are so solid, so airtight, that there is no possible way I could not be convinced. But since I am not convinced, the problem must lie elsewhere besides the actual argument of the Christian. The only option available is to claim that I have “biases”, that I come into the argument already believing what I want to believe, that not accepting the obviously unbeatable Christian argument is a matter of my Will not to accept it. Counter arguments from me simply do not matter and do not need to be addressed, since the Christian has already made a charge against my “biases”.

The Christian who assumes that their apologetic argument is so solid that rejecting the argument must be chalked up to my supposed “presupposition”, is saying exactly this: “My arguments are not good enough to convince you? Fine. Simple solution – you don’t want to be convinced by my arguments, because I know I am correct. End of discussion.”

This is both arrogant and lazy. It is lazy because it ends the discussion. It is lazy because it is an admission by the Christian that they are not willing to engage my counter-argument. It is arrogant because the Christian assumes that there is no valid counter-argument against their apologetic, so supposed “presuppositions” must be resorted to. It is also arrogant because the Christian assumes they can somehow divine, even as an anonymous poster on an Internet blog, my inner-most philosophical leanings, personal convictions, level of open-mindedness and mode of approaching arguments. They do not know, nor do they ask, what I currently believe, why I believe and don’t believe what I do, my history as a believing Christian, and how I currently view the world. None of that matters, because the Christian apologetic is so unbreakable that obviously no pathetic argument I make can possibly stand a chance, and from that arrogant assumption alone, all my philosophical leanings can somehow be perceived with the Christian’s uncanny empathy and intuition.

In order to make the charge against “bias” seem less arrogant, the Apologist will often say, “we all approach these debates with biases, both the Christian and the non-Christian alike. We all have biases that we bring to the table and that colors our decisions!” I am personally shocked at how many non-Christians accept this as a valid point! I do not accept it. I do not believe it to be valid, at least amongst mature, open-minded adults, which I presume most people interested in these theistic topics are.

I work in an environment in which I must daily make decisions that affect the lives of my colleagues and that can carry millions of dollars in ramifications. It is a heavy responsibility, but fortunately I work amongst professionals who help carry the load. We advise each other. We debate. We argue. We bring in new information and unforeseen data to the table. We passionately try to change each other’s minds, because of the large stakes involved. But because we are professionals, we (usually) concede when a colleague makes an argument that makes the most valid points and ends up winning the day. We never assume that a colleague who is unwilling to budge on an issue is doing so because of “presuppositional bias”. Instead, it is our duty to, not only listen to their points, but to put ourselves in their shoes, and as best as we can see things from the other’s perspective. In other words, we try our best to remove any “bias” that we may have, and to listen and empathize with the other viewpoints being offered.

And because of the heavy stakes involved, and because of the burden of responsibility that I must carry, frankly I want to be proven wrong! I want somebody who knows something that I do not, or who views issues in ways I never thought of, or has information, even if unsavory, that will show that I am wrong and lead me down the correct path.

The mature person who is weighing argumentation is usually able and capable of empathizing with an opponent. We can see things in others’ eyes. And the mature person is willing to use this empathy to perhaps learn something new, and alter their view of the world.

We all do it! Be it an employer, a landlord, a politician, a lawyer, a judge, a supervisor of any kind – we must empathize with others, we must try to view things as they do in order to make smart decisions that affect them, along with ourselves and others. We do it with loved ones who see things in their unique way. A parent must adopt the viewpoint of their children to try and understand them. I must adopt the philosophical viewpoints of my wife, as hard as it may sometimes be, in order to understand her – and believe me, it has definitely affected my way of thinking! When I began to seriously doubt and question my Christian Faith, I adopted all viewpoints I encountered as my own, and tried my best to take the apologetic arguments on their own terms.

We all do this. Anybody can do this. With enough insight, education and honesty, I believe we can, to a reasonable degree, adopt and empathize with any philosophical “bias” or “presupposition” and engage with it, and accept or reject it on its own terms, and I think that we can do a reasonable job of it. For this reason I think the charge of “presuppositional bias” that “we all have and cannot overcome” is not just false, it is a simple-minded copout. It is an excuse that is used, and all too frequently accepted in debate that I personally think is bogus. If an argument is to be presented, we are all capable of putting aside biases, at least long enough to empathize and engage in the argument.

So Christian Apologist, I am predisposed not to believe your apologetic argument because I deny the existence of the miraculous?

No Christian. I am not buying it. If you have an apologetic argument to make, then make it and stop with the excuses. I promise to do my best to engage your side of the debate, and to listen to any points you may make. I do acknowledge when an Apologist makes a good point. I hope the Apologist will show me wrong on occasion, because only by showing that I am wrong in some regard am I able to learn anything new. But I also promise not to make any resort to your “preconceived biases”. In return, I ask that you address any counter-argument I may have. Do not resort to my “presumptions”. As far as I am concerned, any Christian who declares that I do not accept an apologetic argument because of my “presuppositions” has just conceded the argument. I will now view such an argument no differently than I do to a Christian who tells me, after all options have been argued, that I just need Faith to believe. Whether the Christian uses the word “presupposition” or “Faith”, the meaning is the same, the argument is just as vacuous, and the conversation is just as finished.

The Pinoy Atheist feeding project

This ariticle by Pinoy Atheist (from a Philippine Atheist group based in Manila) is quite a palate cleanser after my last article on Simbang Gabi superstition. The photos of feeding children in the Cavite neighborhood are absolutely priceless. I love the banner that was displayed, which is a positive message that kids rarely encounter:

"You can be good without religion"

A lesson that many adults still do not understand. I wonder what the adults in that Cavite neighborhood thought of that message?

Thank you Pinoy Atheist, and good luck with your feeding (and education) campaign. I hope to meet you next time I visit your part of the world!

Simbang Gabi Superstition

A visiting priest from Nigeria conducted the fourth and sixth Simbang Gabi homilies and it was obvious that English was his second language. Since English was also the second language of nearly everybody in the pews, I knew not a word he was saying was being understood by anybody. It was probably just as well. His accent was beautiful and exotic, but very thick! It was difficult for even me to understand anything that he was saying, so I could imagine that the average Tagalog speaker was completely lost.

His homilies were also very, very long. I could tell they do things very differently in Nigeria. When he appeared in the priestly procession a second time, there was audible groaning from the young people in the pews.

I kept notes to pass the time. Rarely have I heard such nonsense as came from the mouth of this Nigerian priest.

· Only the virgin is pure, and it is a rare woman who will be accepted by a man after she has been defiled. It is even more rare for a man to accept a woman to marry after she has been made pregnant by another man. This is why Joseph is to be revered, and God blessed Joseph by giving Mary the gift of perpetual virginity.

· Choose the name of your baby carefully, as the power of that name will serve to shape the character and personality of that child forever.

· Your will never feel happy or fulfilled unless you repent and submit to God.

· Make a prayer, then recite the Novena to St Jude Thaddeus 6 times each day for 9 consecutive days. Your prayer will be answered before the 9th day. This has never been known to fail.

· The tongue of St Paul is left preserved in the Vatican. Somebody once tried to burn the room down where it was stored, and although the tongue was charred, it is still preserved. Paul’s tongue is preserved because he always spoke the truth.

I don’t think anybody in RoseMary’s family understood a word he said, and RoseMary herself only caught the bit about the only way to happiness was to submit to God (she wrote ‘this is B.S.’ on my notepad). It was only later that they dared laugh about it and admitted that they did not understand what he was saying.

I did not laugh – simply because I did understood most of what he was saying. I confess, the whole thing started to make me a bit angry. It was a righteous anger – because I love the Philippine people, and I don’t like when these people, most of whom are poor and relatively uneducated, are lied to.

Philippines is a country steeped in superstitious beliefs. It was everywhere, and it got to be a bit unnerving. For instance, women celebrate the New Year by wearing polka-dotted clothes (this would bring money, because the dots are shaped like coins), eating pansit (this would bring long life because the noodles are long), placing coins on all the window sills (again, this would bring in money for the year), and adorning the table with 13 different spherical fruits (because in China, I was told, 13 is a lucky number – and the fruit ensures an abundance of food throughout the year). Fireworks were also fired to chase away evil spirits.

A howling dog is a sign that somebody has just died. Never speak of death, because speaking of evil things will make it so. Unborn fetuses are influenced by things the mother sees, so the mother should avoid looking at ugly things. Television news or scary movies should be avoided since watching anything ugly on television could make the baby ugly. Philippine tele-novellas (similar to American soap operas) are all tinged with the supernatural, magical and fantastic.

Although I asked lots of questions (while trying not to be offensive), I could never truly get straight whether these modern, educated people actually believed these superstitions to be true, whether they actually have power, or whether they are just a fun and harmless cultural practice. When RoseMary and I bought a house, we performed a house christening ritual straight from the Philippines. We filled jars with water, rice, sugar, coins (and I added two staples from my home of New Mexico – dry beans and corn meal), as an ancient tradition that ensures we will never run out of these staple items. Of course, we don’t actually believe this superstition has any power over whether we will go hungry or not, but it just a fun practice that allows RoseMary and I to connect with her Philippine heritage and give her remembrance of her home. Those jars sit on our kitchen counters to this day. Not a problem. Harmless and fun.

But to actually believe these superstitious practices have power? And to be fed such superstitious beliefs from the pulpit, where everything from the lips of the priest is to be taken as unquestioned truth? That got me a bit upset more than once.

A couple of times after Simbang Gabi, as RoseMary and I changed our clothes and prepared for breakfast, and safely away from her family, I vented my frustration. Once, in a coffee shop across from the church I could not restrain myself from venting to my long-suffering wife:

“Pray the Novena 6 times and your prayer will be answered?? It never fails?? There are ways to test these claims – does anybody ever try that? See that girl out there?” I said, pointing out the window to a young, one-legged girl hobbling on a crutch and begging for coins, “I will recite the Novena 6 times and pray that her leg grows back. It never fails right? So why isn’t anybody helping her? If this stuff is true, why isn’t everybody doing this?? Because it is bogus – and you all know it, but nobody dares admit it!”

Yeah, I did get flustered quite a few times, I fully admit.

Nothing useful or educational was dispensed from the pulpit. The homiles were, one and all, saturated with useless superstition. Even the more traditional Christmas homiles, soaked in notions of sin, repentance, and salvation, though fully orthodox, were just as superstitious – it is just that they are so organized in ritual, so universally recognized, so regularly practiced and unquestionably observed, that they are never thought of as superstition.

“They are harmless superstitions,” I was told. No, I do not think they are all harmless, especially if I cannot tell the difference between superstitious and religious beliefs – and unquestioned and faithful adherence is considered a virtue. Here are some claims made by Catholic priests from the pulpit during Simbang Gabi. Make the choice - is the claim based on religion or superstition?

· A priest has the power to turn wine into the blood of a god, and a wafer into the flesh of a god.

· You are dead in sin, but drinking the blood of a god offers salvation.

· A woman is impure to a man if her vagina has been penetrated before marriage.

· The tongue of Paul is preserved because he always spoke the truth.

· Angels minister to believers, provide for their needs, and protect them from danger.

· Reciting certain prayers will make wishes come true.

· After you die, and after you are purged of your sins, you will live forever in Paradise.


How does one tell which of these claims are true and which are false? Accepting these claims as unquestionable truth does nothing but make the faithful adherent an ignorant and uneducated sheep. The priests who dispense this nonsense wield frightful power over their flock, and they use this advantage to spread lies, mythologies and superstitions as if they were relevant and modern facts that people must surround their lives around. I attended mass day after day, and I could not help get more and more upset as each morning service passed.

This is difficult for me to type. I met several of the priests, and to RoseMary they are old family friends based on relationships that are decades long. They are indeed charming, kind, intelligent, and I am sure, very loving and generous people. It is also not easy for me to be so overbearing and judgmental on a foreign culture. But experiencing this convinces me all the more that a life lived by educated choices is better than one lived by superstitious ignorance, and I can only hope that the world is slowly climbing out of the fear of superstition. I truly do love RoseMary’s family and the culture and climate of the Philippine people. But this is why such lies from the pulpit, whether they are called magic, superstition, religion or tradition, make me so upset. Especially lies given to people who are largely poor and relatively uneducated.

So what do you think, Dear Reader? Is my judgment of the Catholic traditions and the Philippine people too harsh? Am I wrong to call traditional orthodox beliefs given from the pulpit 'lies'? Do I have a good cause to be upset about the spreading of superstition, or should I exercise more caution?

Physics Puzzler - Ice Footprints

On Tuesday evening, 1 Feb, I took my dogs for a walk around the block. I usually take them outside of town to run around in the desert, but nightfall was coming on, and I could tell a cold front was moving in. It was at least 30 degrees F colder than usual, so I wussed out and took them for about 6 laps around the block. As the sun went down, it got biting cold. I could feel my cheeks and nose start to get numb. It rarely gets below freezing here in El Paso, and the forecast was warning us to prepare for cold of historic proportions. Not a soul was on the street with me, and as I completed my 6 laps with my dogs, the sun set and the bitter cold evening began.

I woke up the next morning to this:





The temperature remained at about 10F all day, and the snow that fell was light, dry and powdery. I brought the dogs indoors, and my panicked tropical wife and I spent Wednesday indoors doing our best to keep warm despite intermittent power failures. El Paso is ill-equipped to deal with so much snow and ice-covered streets, and nearly every business, school and government office was closed. Everybody was advised to stay indoors and off the streets. When I left the house to check on my elderly neighbors, I noticed no footprints on the snow-covered sidewalks. Everybody heeded the advice and remained huddled indoors.

On Thursday, the temperatures were slightly, but not much higher. However the skies had cleared and a strong wind had blown most of the dry snow off the sidewalks. RoseMary and I were getting cabin fever, so we decided to brave the streets and drive out to the desert and let the dogs play in the snow. When it snows in El Paso, enjoy it quickly because it will not stay on the ground for long - I don’t care how cold it gets!

As I looked up the sidewalk in front of the house, I noticed a most curious thing:



The snow was drifting off the sidewalks, and leaving behind sets of footprints formed of ice! They were definitely the same pattern and size of the boots I wore while walking the dogs out the night before the snow fell, and they went all the way down and around the end of the block.



My baffled wife had no idea why I was shooting so many pictures of the sidewalk. She yelled at me to get in the truck, since she was freezing her tropical ***** off, so I climbed in and off we went for a snow hike in the desert.

OK science nerds, here is your brain teaser: Explain why footprints encased in ice formed on the sidewalk. Here is what we have:


· Tuesday night, I walked outside before any snow fell. The temperature was roughly 20F. The temperature dropped to about 5F that night.

· Wednesday was cloudy with a high of about 10F. Light, dry snow fell off-and-on all day and covered everything. I noticed no footprints in the snow-covered sidewalks. Wednesday night was also about 5F.

· Thursday was sunny, and slightly warmer but still well below freezing. The wind was a bit stronger, and blew the snow off the roads and sidewalks. That is when I noticed my footprints, left before the snow fell, encased in ice.

Any ideas?

I can't think of a title to this one

How do I begin this article? I have so much to express, yet so much I don’t know if I want to put out there for public viewing.

At least this fabulous internet can make me anonymous. I have that.

In 2005, I, a male from the United States, with a mixed Hispanic and generic European ancestry, married a woman from the Philippines who was visiting the United States on a work visa. You may call her RoseMary.

I am not unique. I have met many men who were smitten by women of that tropical island archipelago. There is a small community of Filipinos here in El Paso that we are pretty close to. It includes a fair number of Anglo men who have married into the Filipino clan, of which I am one. When I visited Philippines, I saw large numbers of white men, young and old, being led around by their Filipino wives, especially in the business districts of Makati City. Oh, I need to be careful here, because I also know some black men who have also been smitten by these Filipino women, but most of the ones I saw and know are white. Some of them had children, and they had the beautiful features of their mixed races.

There are two funny things that I found in common with nearly every one of these mixed couples. The mixed couples always consist of the non-Filipino man marrying a Filipino woman. It never seems to be a Filipino man who is smitten with a white woman. Of course I am sure there are exceptions, but I have never witnessed one.

The other thing is their religion, and that is where I can count myself as the exception. Every man who I have met that has married a Filipino woman has converted to the religious faith of the Filipino woman – Roman Catholicism. I know that about 1/3 of Filipinos are Muslims, and there are also Protestants of various denominations, but the vast bulk of the women who come to the United States are devoutly, unreservedly, unwaveringly, Roman Catholic. And the men who are smitten by them convert to their Faith in order to marry into the Catholic Church, and to have children who they can swear to raise into the Catholic Church during the Baptismal rite.

I never did. I never converted from my Baptist Faith into Catholicism. Of course, I had to alter my views towards Roman Catholics. I had to come to grips with the fact that they did not revere the Bible as I did, and that they prayed to Mary, the Saints, and followed the lead of a religious hierarchical system that I found borderline-insane, but I had to at least adjust my Faith enough to convince myself that she was also a Christian who just did things a little differently.

I met her while she was attending my Baptist Church. One of her friends from work was the wife of the church pastor, and out of curiosity, she attended. The pastor was a loving and good man, who was interested in raising and developing lasting families and relationships. Although he was Bible-believing, he rarely preached on the doctrines of Christianity, i.e. sin, salvation, heaven and hell. By that time in my life, I was burned enough by that stuff that I needed a break.

When we were dating, we alternated churches. At some point, when it became obvious to me that I would eventually ask her to marry me, I became more serious in my religious devotion. I was taught, and I believed, that to be a good husband, I needed to be a good Christian, so I began to take my religious beliefs more seriously. I attended Catholic Mass with her, and at first I really did not understand the completely alien environment, but she told me that all the ceremony and ritual was just an outward sign of adoration and worship. I did my best to hide all the anti-Catholic John MacArthur sermons I had heard somewhere in the back of my mind, and just witness and absorb myself into the ceremony. The scripture readings and homilies were always short, and it was obvious that most everyone attending was oblivious to them. I always asked RoseMary if she could remember the Scripture reading after Mass. She never could. I always did.

In return, she attended various Baptist churches with me. Instead of ritual, ceremony and worship, she got some guy standing behind a lectern and gave, what amounted to, a 30-45 minute lecture on fine points of the Bible. Looking back on those days, I am shocked at her patience with the whole matter. At the time, I thought I was exposing her to ‘sound doctrine’.

They were two completely different religious environments. She never converted. Neither did I. To her credit, she never asked, nor expected me to convert. Unlike the many men who have converted to Roman Catholicism to marry a Filipino woman, I never did. She never converted either, and considers herself Catholic to this day. After a lot of difficult discussion and decisions, and despite the protests of her Catholic Family, we wed in the Baptist Church where we met – a choice neither of us regrets.

In hindsight, I believe I took my religious beliefs much more seriously than she ever did. To me, Christianity was a struggle of Faith. A life-decision. A commitment. To Rosemary, Christianity, specifically Catholicism, is an effortless matter of identity. She is Catholic in the same way she is Filipino.

How can a man convert, just to marry a woman? I swear, I just don’t get it. Unless these men also do not take religious faith as seriously as I did, and view it as Rosemary does – that is, as an identity marker - then it just completely mystifies me. How can a man become catechized, baptized, recite creeds and statements of faith, and swear to raise his future children, upon their baptism, to believe the same things – and do these things, not as a true matter of belief, but as a matter of convenience to marry? Is religious conversion that trivial to some people? I took creedal statements too seriously – I never wanted to recite things that I did not believe were true. To these men, is changing convictions about transcendent and unseen forces that govern the whole nature of reality like changing brands of laundry detergent?

I know plenty of these men. Maybe I should just ask one.

You know, I wanted to discuss something specific when I started typing this article. Instead it turned into a bit of a ramble, and I never got to the point I wanted to make. I guess I am still deciding if I want to make that point public. It is a bit of a painful and personal matter.

Maybe, instead of that, and if you will allow me Dear Reader, I can just ramble a bit, and scatter bits and pieces of this grave matter throughout? Sure. Maybe that is what I will do.

Until then, Dear Reader.

photo: Ritual dancing during first day of Simbang Gabi. St Augustine Parish Church, Cavite, Philippines.

My Martin Luther King Day annual ritual

Happy Martin Luther King Jr Day, everybody!

I have made it an annual ritual to read Martin Luther King's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' as my MLK day celebration. It is not only to remember the courage of the man, and to be inspired by the power and force of the letter. It is also to commemorate the personal impact that the letter had on me, 5 years ago, when I read a small portion of the letter to our small-group Bible study. The reaction of my fellow Christians to that letter, and my contemplation of the rest of the letter and on the life of Martin Luther King Jr, was the initial calalyst of my doubting of the Faith, and which ultimately led to my abandonment of that Faith altogether.

I encourage everybody to read Letter from Birmingham Jail, and remember the conditions that a large percentage of our population lived under just a few decades ago, to be optimistic about the progress we have made, and vigilant about the work still to be done in the struggle for human rights.

You may find the full text of The Letter from Birmingham Jail HERE.

In the meantime, I want to re-post two blog articles that I wrote back in March 2007, in which I wrote a short book review on a biography I had read on the life of MLK, and also the impact that the Letter from Birmingham Jail had on my small-group Bible Study and on my Christian life. Here they are, back to back:



Let the Trumpet Sound
The Life of Martin Luther King Jr. by Stephen B. Oates

This is one of the books that started my doubting slide. This is a major catalyst for my current trend away from my beliefs. I have always had questions and doubts, but this book forced me to confront those doubts head-on, to take them from under the rug, and re-evaluate my beliefs in Christianity.

Last year, I was convicted by my ignorance of the world around me. I am educated, yet I knew next to nothing about the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. So I picked up this 500 page biography of Martin Luther King, published in 1982. I was immediately struck by the very recent history of this country, the history we have all heard a little about, but I think may not have studied in much detail. Black Americans were treated like animals in the Southern US as recently as the 1960s, and this book makes that point clear. King was a brilliant young minister from Atlanta who held his first pastoral duties in Birmingham, Alabama. Holding a PhD in systematic theology, King was highly academic, and initially approached his sermons in an intellectual manner. But Birmingham was the in the heart of racism and segregation. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man, Birmingham erupted into violence and protest. King really struggled to keep is church and ideology focused on Jesus, heaven, salvation of souls and the afterlife. But he was forced to concede that a church which does no good for humanity while on earth is not a church at all. He went full throttle into social activism and civil rights and never looked back. The book, and King's life and activism is too full to summarize beyond this point. Pick it up at the library, and read it for yourself.

Bottom line - this book is excellent. I recommend it to anyone who values history and our relationship with our fellow humans. If I have one criticism, it is that the book nearly deifies King, and glosses over his very real failings, such as infidelity to his wife. That is a small complaint though. Read it.

But the real question is, what is this book review doing on a site which questions the claims of Christianity? What are the spiritual applications? Like I said, this book is one of the catalysts for my move away from Christianity. I will write about that in my next article – so stay tooooned.


Let the Trumpet Sound
The Life of Martin Luther King Jr., by Stephen B. Oates

This is part 2 of my review of this outstanding book. If you have not yet done so, head on out to the library and check this thing out. It is on my top 10 list from last year.

Now, here is how it affected me spiritually.

Last year I was content with my Christian beliefs, and holding small group Bible studies in my home. I had (and still have) good friends who attended. We shared life experiences together, talked and prayed about showing Christian love to the world, then .. talked and prayed about it some more. I went to a Baptist church which focused its energies on strengthening families and relationships, which is great. But I was a little unsettled. It all seemed too secure and comfortable. Rallying our small group to go give aid to the elderly, or visit the retirement home (one of my favorite things to do) became a real chore. We would plan, organize and plan and plan until we had planned things to death, and never do much of anything. And I am not trashing my friends, because I was just as guilty of apathy as anyone in our group. I had the best of intentions, but in the end it cost too much time. Time is a precious resource. Giving money is relatively easy – but time is very difficult.

Reading about MLK was seriously convicting to my Christian faith on that basis. This was a man who gave up everything for what he believed, even to the point of neglecting his family (which I could never do – nor intend to do). My brand of Christianity seemed tepid and too easy. King, and many others gave their lives to make the world aware of the injustices of the world, and to protest for change. King was a huge admirer and follower of Mahatma Gandhi, who lived as Christlike a life as anyone who ever walked the face of the earth. But how is Christ working in my life to make the world better? No, I don’t mean to be another MLK, that is just silly. Just doing my share to help the desparately poor who live just across the border from me, to help the handicapped children ministry, or visit the elderly and sick? Is the Holy Spirit really empowering me or any of my other Christian friends with the Fruit of the Spirit any more than my good and respectable, but non-believing nieghbors?

In 1963, MLK was arrested (again) for peacefully protesting segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. While he was in jail, eight white pastors from around the state wrote the local newspaper, and editorialized against King’s activism. They figured he should be a good preacher, stay behind the pulpit, and keep his nose out of trouble. In response, King wrote what came to be known as Letter from Birmingham Jail on scaps of paper, and smuggled out by his lawyer bit by bit while he was in solitary confinement. This section from Letter from Birmingham Jail will stay with me always:

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Wow. An irrelevant social club. That hurt. I read this powerful letter as though it were written directly to my Baptist Church, to my friends and to myself. It really hurt. I even brought it to my small group and read the above passage to my friends before Bible Study. I wanted to motivate them into some kind of conviction of our condition, but it was met by my Spirit Empowered friends with general apathy. So we fell into our routine, and read a couple of verses from the end of James about loving and praying for the sick among us.

After that, I could no longer go back to my old Baptist church. I viewed my brand of Christianity to be empty, nearly vacuous, and not doing myself nor anyone else much good. The Holy Spirit, I felt, was not empowering me nor anyone else to do anything. I came to realize that if I wanted to do good for my neighbors, I needed to just stop praying, reading Bible passages and being a pious piss-ant and JUST DO IT. Funny thing is, my wife agreed with me without even reading the book. Some of us have natural insights that others do not.

The faith story goes on from there, and it continues to unwind to this day. But that is how this book enters into the story. That is a strange way to begin questioning my own beliefs. But as a loving and charitable old friend of mine once said, “I would love to be a nun, if it were not for all that belief in God that comes with it”.

The 200-Word Resurrection Witness - test case #1

DaGoodS, Vinny, I and several others have been having a continuing conversation with Dr Clay Jones, Assistant Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Back in September, Dr Jones posted, what he called, his 200-word Resurrection Witness. It is basically, what we who engage in Christian Apologetics discussions call, the ‘Die for a Lie’ argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The discussion began HERE and continues HERE.

I first heard the 'Die for a Lie' argument while attending Calvary Chapel in Albuquerque under pastor Skip Heitzig. I do believe it was he who conned me into believing that the argument had any merit. I am embarrassed to admit that I used the ‘Die for a Lie’ argument on my friends at work in the attempt to convince them that there was solid historical evidence to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But that was nearly 20 years ago. I have learned quite a bit since those days.

So, we have been trying to explain to Dr Jones, on his blog, why we do not believe his 200-word Resurrection Witness is a very good argument. In one comment to Dr Jones’ article, after listing a number of problems I had with the argument, I commented:

…Dr Jones, these are complicated issues, the number of sources is vast, and the objections are many, and I think legitimate. I am sorry, but I just don’t think you can win over educated skeptics in 200 words or less.

To which Dr Jones replied:

It never entered my thought process that my 200 word witness would be successful against the educated skeptic. I wrote it for the average man or woman one might encounter at an airport or a soccer game.

An astounding admission, and one that DaGoodS has also blogged about!

So, while folding laundry this evening with my unsuspecting wife RoseMary, and figuring the average woman folding laundry was close enough to an average woman in the airport or soccer game, I decided to use her as a test case. RoseMary, for a little background, is a Roman Catholic from the Philippines, and has no conception of the particular subdiscipline of Christianity called ‘apologetics’.

The conversation that ensued occurred less than an hour ago, and I want to type it down now while it is still fresh in my memory.

While folding some socks, I gave her that look, that certain look which surely warned her that I was about to start talking about religion again.

“Hey RoseMary, can I ask you something? Something that involves religion? I promise, it is not something I want to interrogate you about. I just want to read you something and get your response.”

“Sure”

“OK, I want to read you something from a blogsite, something called a ‘200 word Resurrection WItness’. It is an argument that will try to convince you that there is really evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. So just pretend you are hanging around at the airport or maybe a soccer game and somebody approaches you and says this to you, please tell me what your response will be.”

Then I read, quoting Dr Jones' Resurrection Witness:

In apologetics we provide argument and evidence for the truth of historic Christianity. For example, consider Jesus’ resurrection. We know that Jesus’ disciples walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, and ate with Jesus—they knew who Jesus was. They were with Jesus when he was arrested and they then scattered. The Romans then scourged Jesus, drove spikes through His wrists and His feet to nail him to the cross, and thrust a spear in His side to make sure He was dead. Then they buried Jesus.

But three days later, Jesus’ tomb was found empty and the disciples started testifying that they again walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, and ate with Jesus. And what’s really amazing is that many testified to his resurrection even to their own torture and death. We know extra-Biblically that Nero beheaded the Apostle Paul and we know from the Jewish historian Josephus that the Sanhedrin stoned to death Jesus’ brother James, who had become a leader of the Christian church.

So here’s my question: if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, then why would the first disciples die for what they knew was a lie?

RoseMary: OK. I’m not sure how you want me to respond.

Me: Somebody is trying to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead based on reasoned argument. Basically, Jesus’ apostles spent time with Jesus while he was alive, then saw him killed, then saw him alive again, risen from the dead. How do we know? Because they were all willing to die for their witness to the resurrected Jesus. The argument says that we know the Resurrection is true because why else would the disciples die for what they knew to be a lie? How do you respond to that?

RoseMary (utterly confused): I don’t understand. Is the person who wrote this a Christian?

Me: Yes! Here is the thing, we in the United States, in the West in general, live in a post-Faith world. We want evidence for claims. I want evidence! So a whole new discipline arose in Christianity called Apologetics. The people who do this spend their time cooking up arguments, based on what they consider reasonable evidence, for the truth of Christianity. Evidence like you could present in a court case, let’s say. I confess that I was into learning this stuff a lot several years ago, because it was very interesting to me! So this professor…

RoseMary: You mean there is a college professor who does this for a living?

Me: Believe it or not, yeah. I think there are lots of them. Anyway, what this argument is doing, is trying to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead with an evidence based, reasonable argument. Why would the Apostles die as martyrs, if they knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead? There is no good answer to this, so the argument goes, so therefore, Jesus had to have risen from the dead, and Christianity is true! So what is your response to this?

RoseMary (flabbergasted): That is… just crazy. I mean, I believe because I have to believe this to be a Catholic. Where is the Faith? You don’t reason this out. You accept it as a lifestyle, as a matter of Faith. You have to have Faith.

Me: So you don’t think much of the argument?

RoseMary: When you need arguments like that, it means you doubt. You are a Doubting Thomas, and you really don’t have Faith. That’s one reason why Protestants are crazy. How can you be a Christian if you don't have Faith? Faith cannot be measured by any physical thing, you believe because you believe. Whether there is evidence or not. Whether Jesus really did rise from the dead, or did not rise from the dead, you believe it is simple as that. If you probe you are a Doubting Thomas. Why would you want proof?

After letting RoseMary read this to confirm that I got her words and thoughts down accurately, she went on to clarify. I typed these words as she spoke. This next bit from her is verbatim:

RoseMary: I was very confused about what that man was trying to get at, and what that article was all about. That is why I had to ask you a few times to explain to me. Because now I realize that an average Joe or Jane will not just grasp it that easily because we will not understand what he is trying to convey. I think I am educated and smart enough, but I did not get what he was trying to say. And honestly, I don’t care what he says. People like him don’t have to tell me to believe and what not to believe, I think I can take care of that pretty much by myself. And my Faith cannot just be explained by a Professor through his words. I understand my Faith as I see fit. And I think that many people in this world who have Faith believe in what they should believe. Does that make sense? I need Tagalog to say it right. Maybe that is why it is hard to explain. It is very hard in English. Maybe that is why I don’t get him. If an American tells me what to believe, I will not get him, because it does not reach me. Maybe for other Americans, but I don’t get it. I understand the English, I understand the words, I understand the language, but I do not understand the context. I don’t understand where the argument is coming from. The whole idea of arguing about this does not make sense to me. Why does this man spend his time making up arguments like this? Maybe he should go into making pottery. Can I watch my movie now?

So there you have it, the response of an average woman when presented with the 200-word ‘Die for a Lie’ argument. Perhaps, since RoseMary is already a believer in the resurrection, she is not quite the target audience that the argument is designed for. Also, RoseMary, being from the Philippines, may find the whole concept of apologetics difficult because of the cultural divide. But then again, I remember when I shared ‘Die for a Lie’ with my old co-workers. I got pretty much the same response from all those men and women that I witnessed to, and there was no cultural divide then. When I approached the average person with ‘Die for a Lie’, without even first enquiring as to what their current religious beliefs were, I was always met with the same utter confusion, astonishment, and bewilderment.

I learned something from RoseMary this evening. Apologetic arguments like ‘Die for a Lie’ make sense to Dr Clay Jones, Vinny, DaGoodS, and myself because we are in the game. Dr Jones defends these arguments for a living. I question and critique them, almost as a hobby – thinking about such things is fun and instructive, and I am also hopeful to learn a thing or two. But to those who accept their religious beliefs on Faith, and are not in the game, and do not understand the context or apologetic language, these apologetic arguments appear to make absolutely no sense.

Which leads me to question - is there even a point to Christian Apologetics?

I am wondering if I should present this same 200-word argument to a sample of my co-workers, and get their responses. Maybe. I can call it a social-science experiment.

Thank you again to my ever-suffering wife RoseMary for putting her up to another religious experiment. And, as always dear Reader, I would love to read your thoughts.