How Should Duck Dynasty Respond

A lot has been said about how Christians should respond to the Duck Dynasty situation. Most of the responses I have seen range from boycotting A&E to taking a fresh stand for freedom of religion to pontificating about free speech. However, I want to focus your attention of what Scripture says about how Christians should respond in this situation. After all, that is what we are talking about here.

First and foremost, Phil Robertson was absolutely correct to say what he said and he was right in saying it within the context in which he did. Note that Robertson lumped us all together as sinners. He did not say that homosexuals were worse than the rest of us. He did express his preference for heterosexuality and urged other men to do the same. Other than that, he classified fornication and his own past behavior as sinful alongside homosexuality.

Fast forward to Al Mohler’s interview on CNN. He was cast beside an obviously gay man in order to contrast Mohler’s view with the gay view. Poor guy, little did he know that he was on with one of the most brilliant minds in the entire world. There were two things that stood out to me about the gay man’s argument: first was his appeal to the populace and the second was his view that bestiality was a sexual perversion. The Christian has no regard for whether or not every solitary non-Christian American in this country endorses the gay lifestyle. That is not something we consider when we evaluate the morality of a particular behavior. We evaluate behavior in the light of Scripture, not in terms of the typical contemporary mindless twits that have come to make up American culture. Second, I find it quite interesting that a man in the gay world would be offended by sex with animals. Why would that sort of sex be considered perverse by a homosexual? What is the ground of his moral objection? I wonder if he considered the feelings of those who enjoy bestiality. Clearly, the homosexual man has failed to see the obvious moral dilemma into which he has stumbled.

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5:10-12)

Jesus was clear in how He expected members of His Church to respond to the kind of vitriol and hate that American culture is spewing out against Christians and their views. We are not to retaliate. We are not to get all worked up about our rights. We are to rejoice! It is a marvelous honor for Christians to be attacked and scandalized for the sake of the gospel. Phil Robertson is a very blessed man today. He has been subjected to some hefty persecution because he stood with the teachings of Christ! Phil Robertson identified with Jesus Christ today and American culture hates him for it. That is where we are folks. True, lots of people are standing behind Phil and we should. But the gay agenda is here to stay and its core objective has been to destroy Christianity all along. Gay marriage, equal treatment, special protection? All of these are nothing more than distractions designed to push an ugly, bigoted, hateful, and dangerous agenda that has at its center the absolute abolishment of genuine biblical Christianity. Let us take up the armor of God, proclaim the truth, and rejoice in the sufferings of Christ!

Defending Duck Dynasty

By now you have heard that A&E has suspended “Duck Dynasty” dad Phil Robertson from the reality show because of Mr. Robertson’s Christian beliefs relating to homosexual sex. It is entirely clear at this point that American culture has had it with the Christian worldview. Make no mistake about it, no one that endorses or accepts the homosexual lifestyle is a Christian. It does not matter what they call themselves. That subject will never be truly open to the Christian group. It is like saying that Atheists are Christians. In addition, it is clear that American culture will continue to ignore the truth about the unhealthy nature homosexual sex.

There are literally streams of data and empirical evidence irrefutably connecting homosexual sex with a broad range of diseases and chronic health issues. For example, “A 2010 CDC data analysis underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States. The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, found that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM ismore than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.”

Source: [Centers for Disease Control. CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men. Press Release. Wednesday, March 10, 2010.]

“There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called “the Gay Bowel” is described in the medical literature.¹⁶ “Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse.” Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with “gay bowel,” the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.”

Source: [Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., “Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Homosexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair,” Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983).]

“Rimming” is the street name given to oralanal contact. It is because of this practice that intestinal parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of American gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, “rimming” provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections. [Source click]

Finally, homosexual sex is like abortion for most Americans. They really do not want to see what really happens. This is because deep down inside, they know that the behavior really is quite unnatural and repulsing.

In 1948, Kinsey observed that long-term homosexual relationships were notably few.  Now, more than fifty years later, long-term gay male relationships may be more common, but the fact remains that they are typically not monogamous. [Source]

In one recent study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIV-status (1). [Source]

William Aaron’s autobiographical book Straight draws similar conclusions:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible.  Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners].  Constantly the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement. [p. 208]
He concludes:
Gay life is most typical and works best when sexual contacts are impersonal and even anonymous.  As a group the homosexuals I have known seem far more preoccupied with sex than heterosexuals are, and far more likely to think of a good sex life as many partners under many exciting circumstances. [p.209] [Source]

The image of gay relationships that has been widely disseminated in American culture is a mirage. There is a devious and perverse lifestyle just in back of this image about which the overwhelming majority of American culture hasn’t a clue. Leave aside two men kissing and the anal and oral sex images that are offensive enough. But add to that perverse practices like rimming, fisting, urinating, group sex orgies, and other behaviors that are just too vile to mention, and it becomes very clear that the supposed myth that homosexuality is all about perverted sex turns out to be exactly the truth. The studies are rather obvious that homosexuals are not after monogamy. It was a bait and switch. They are after the destruction of sacred traditional values upon which the institution of marriage and the morality of sexual behavior are built. They want to destroy the walls of human sexual ethics and replace them with a free-for-all eternal state of perverse sexual behavior without restraint. And they are making serious progress toward achieving their goal.

The Moral Landscape: Harris' Howler on Science's Ability to Account for Morality

Morality and values transcend the human conscious mind (hereafter referred to as the conscious mind). By their very nature, these exist apart from the conscious mind. Therefore, it is impossible for morality and values to depend on the conscious mind for their existence. The way in which the conscious mind knows morality is the same way in which it knows God: divine revelation. The only good explanation for how we know about the existence of morality and values in the conscious mind is the imago dei.

In his book, The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris laid out his case for how science is capable of providing a naturalistic explanation for human values and morality. His major premise is that morality and values depend on the existence of the conscious mind. Specifically, Harris points to the ability of the conscious mind to experience well-being and suffering as proof that morality and values depend on the conscience mind. I believe Harris is sorely misguided in his beliefs and I intend to prove that 1) Harris isn’t saying anything new and 2) that he isn’t even making an argument as much as he is making rhetorical statements about how he wishes things really were.

Because morality is an abstract external imposition that is common to all humanity, it cannot be conditioned by particular phenomena. This is because you cannot move from “is” to “ought.” For the reason that morality is subject to a vast degree of variance and interpretations when it moves from the abstract to the concrete or the general to the particular, it is impossible for human experience to account for on naturalistic grounds. The necessary precondition for morality resides outside the conscious mind. Moving from what is to what ought to be is like attempting to reverse a waterfall. 

Morality informs human behavior. That is to say it provides us with a sense of good behavior and bad behavior. Morality then, originates outside the conscious mind. By its nature, morality stands over each of us, informing us how we ought to act, to think, and to relate to others. The moral question that ethicists seek to answer is “What is humanity’s summum bonum – the highest good?” Particular experience cannot help answer this question because our experiences are vastly different from one another. My experience for taking a life may produce an entirely different affect than the next person even under the very same conditions. Does this mean that the morality of the act somehow is difference because the experience is different? The moral law stands above us because it has its source in our Creator, God, Who is Himself above us.

Morality is, in my opinion, a self-justifying belief. It is readily apparent that right and wrong are present in the world. It is obvious that every human understands the concept of morality. We can even say with great conviction that immoral men, such as Hitler for example, had a strong sense of morality even if it was a profoundly distorted one. However, morality becomes very problematic when it moves from the realm of ideas to the world of human behavior. If morality and values depend on the conscious mind, one has to ask the question, which one. Just as the abstract notion of morality demonstrates that moral law is inherently transcendent, so too does the fact that differences over particular moral behavior testify against the notion that it is dependent on the conscious mind. The recent decision by a judge to sentence a 16 year-old to probation for recklessly killing four people in a drunk-driving accident is a perfect example. Many conscious minds are morally offended and I am one of them. However, it is obvious that the judge’s conscious mind has a radically different experience than most of the rest of us. This degree of variance in the interpretation of moral acts in particular demonstrates that the conscious mind cannot be trusted as a reliable source for moral law.

What then is the necessary precondition for morality? Moreover, what is the necessary precondition for knowing that morality as an idea is a properly basic belief? Morality actually does depend on a conscious mind. In that respect, Sam Harris is correct. Where he is wrong is that morality depends on a human conscious mind which is what I take him to mean. Since God’s mind is subject to God Himself, the only way for our conscious mind to know anything at all about morality is if God Himself reveals it to us. God has revealed morality to human beings on two very basic levels: on a natural level and a spiritual level. The imago dei is the necessary precondition that makes human consciousness of morality possible. In Christian theology, we call this natural revelation. The image of God in the human conscious is why we understand and acknowledge the validity of morality and values in the human experience. Secondly, God has revealed to His elect in Scripture exactly how we are supposed to carry on with life.

I have argued that morality, by its very nature must transcend all of humanity because of the obvious external imposition it places upon us all. Since this is the case, the conscious mind is inadequate to provide for sufficient explanation for morality and values. I have also argued that morality becomes highly problematic when it moves from the abstract to the concrete. It is impossible for human experience to provide a sufficient causal explanation for morality due to the fact of the broad range of variance regarding particular acts of human behavior. I have also argued that Harris is correct in that morality actually does depend on a conscious mind. There must be something intelligent in back of it all. But that something must be able to attach value, purpose, and significance to human beings as well as human acts. And that something is God our Creator. Hence the necessary precondition for morality is God. And the necessary precondition for our knowledge and understanding of the idea of morality is the imago dei.

Morality and values transcend the human conscious mind. Because they are transcendental to the conscious mind, they cannot, in any way depend on the conscious mind for their existence. Morality comes to us from out there, not from within.. That is to say that morality originates in the nature of God our Creator.

In summary, I have shown that morality does depend on the conscious mind of God. Now, because morality depends on the conscious mind of God, and because God is a necessary being, morality then is a necessary idea whose existence does not depend on the human conscious mind for its existence. Indeed the notion that a necessary idea would depend on a contingent being is preposterous. 

What are the implications of a morality that has its source in the nature of God? To be sure, the implications are profound. If morality has its source in the nature of God, it follows that all humanity is morally responsible and accountable to God for how we conduct our lives. What God says is moral is moral and what God says is immoral is immoral. Here we move from the general idea of morality to the very particular behavior without any incongruities whatsoever. The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. (Ec 12:13.)

10 Myths and 10 Truths About Atheism: Rejoinder to Sam Harris

Sam Harris, in a recent article carried by the Los Angeles Times, has made, what I consider, an obviously unremarkable attempt to clear up some basic misunderstanding concerning the teachings of atheism. Apparently Harris is disturbed by the degree of stigma attached with atheism and this is his attempt to change the image of the godless and god-hating philosophy. This is my attempt to discuss whether or not I think Harris is successful. Harris lists 10 myths people believe about atheists and then tries to set the record straight.

Myth 1: Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

“Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so.” Harris makes no argument for meaningful lives. He simply makes a statement. Atheism often hides its true colors and avoids the rational implications of its dearly prized presuppositions. Harris unwittingly reveals his true feelings about meaning in his last sentence: Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless. Harris is so unconcerned with meaninglessness that he makes it his first “myth” that others believe about atheists. That sure sounds like it bothers him to me.

Myth 2: Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in history.

Note that Harris personalizes atheism in myth 1 and depersonalizes it in myth 2. This is because it is a fact of history that atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were responsible for the greatest crimes in history. It is what we call a historically documented fact! Harris, in a bizarre move, attempts to blame this fact on religion, interestingly enough. Apparently, if these atheists had not borrowed dogmatic thinking from religion, they would not have been such monsters.

Myth 3: Atheism is dogmatic.

“Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous.” In reply to Harris, one could rightfully point out that the claims of Christian theism are only ridiculous if one dogmatically holds to the autonomous epistemology espoused by atheism. In other words, Christianity and Atheism have criteria by which beliefs are deemed rational. Both are guilty of dogmatically holding to that criteria. Christianity is just honest about it.

Myth 4: Atheists think everything in the universe around by chance

“No one knows why the universe came into being.” Reply, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There are only two options in terms of why something exists as opposed to nothing. Either the universe was caused by something other than itself, or it arose somehow by pure chance. It is impossible to miss the level of discomfort Harris feels at this point in his attempt to defend what is obviously indefensible, namely, that something arose from nothing without a cause.

Myth 5: Atheism has no connection with science

“Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.” I am always fascinated that men who pride themselves on being scientific or really intellectual fall into such basic informal fallacies like this one. This is the fallacy of appeal to authority, specifically, the authority of the many. Scientists supposed represent the best thinkers, making them the authority in “thinking.” Christianity does not accept scientific criteria as its final authority for faith or justified belief. And that is the very squabble that Harris ignores.

Myth 6: Atheists are arrogant

“Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion.” Notice that Harris, in his attempt to disown arrogance actually engages in an extremely arrogant statement, pretending that Christians have no good reason for their beliefs. Hello, Mr. Harris, perhaps someone else should have taken up the atheist’s banner on this one.

Myth 7: Atheists are closed to spiritual experience

“There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences.” What atheists cannot do is provide any rational justification for these experiences and for why they value them. If we are truly molecules in motion, it only begs the question as to how atheists can be open to spiritual experience as if being so is virtuous somehow. Once again, Harris claims that Christians make unjustifiable claims about the nature of reality is simply wrong. What Christians do is justify their claims to knowledge on the basis of divine revelation. What Harris should do, in the name of intellectual honesty, is simply say that he doesn’t like how Christians justify their claim to knowledge.

Myth 8: Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding

Incredibly, Harris does not offer anything more than baseless speculations about the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial life, that such life would be atheistic of course, and that such life would be even less impressed with the Bible than human atheists would. What a waste of time this myth turned out to be.

Myth 9: Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society

“In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available.” I would love to hear Harris defend the idea of “good.” What does he mean when he says that people should behave well? Moreover, what can he possibly mean by “good reasons?” These statements have morality unavoidably embedded in them. How do we go from slime to fine? How does a biological accident move from nothing to something of value? Atheism has no logical ground for acts of kindness, for nobility, or even for heroes. An atheist who lives a good life does a good thing without a good reason.

Myth 10: Atheism provides no basis for morality

“We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.” Notice that Harris’s answer gives us no good reason to condemn Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Apparently their decision about morality was different from ours. In addition, what about all the crime, and injustice, and hate that is present in human society. The philosophical problem with Harris’ view is the lack of criteria to get started. How can humanity improve morality without having something “better” to compare it with? By what standard would we look at murder thousands of years ago and contemplate that it should be immoral rather than moral?

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps. 14:1) The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good. (Ps. 53:1)

The Christian’s Reply: Biblical Apologetics versus Craig's Philosophy

As one examines 1 Peter 3:15 outside contemporary culture, the question of defending the faith takes on far less complexity than modern Christian philosophers and apologists lead us to believe. That being said, I do not wish to lead you to imagine that such an endeavor is undemanding or exceptionally uncomplicated. What I am going to argue is that the actual task of apologetics is much more bound up in the word “reply” than most apologists realize. The key to being a good apologist is not philosophical shrewdness. Rather, the key to being a good apologist is twofold: you should be a levelheaded exegete of the text, and a capable communicator. Notice that both of these skills are associated with language. Language is the medium of the gospel. Language is the medium of truth. Language is the medium of apologetics. If you will persistently devote time to understanding human language, you can develop the skills that are necessary to become a very effective apologist.

If it is true that a Christian does not need philosophy in order to be an effective apologist, does that mean we should ignore it completely. I do not think ignoring philosophy entirely is the best approach. I think it is useful to understand the basic concepts of philosophy so that you can speak the language and understand where people with a bent toward philosophy are coming from as you teach them about the Christ. That being said, most people are not philosophers and have little interest in devoting themselves to the goal of acquiring even a modest knowledge of the subject. It follows then that our purpose for acquainting ourselves with philosophical language and concepts only proves helpful for more personal reasons than it does for apologetical reasons. For example, it is useful to understand the basics of epistemology if you intend to read a publication that deals with philosophical concepts. It makes for a slow and tedious read when you have to break at every other sentence to search for a definition. Philosophers are characteristically infatuated with capacious vocabularies, or I should say lots of really big words. I suppose it makes them feel especially cerebral. In other words, it makes ‘em feel really smart.

Now, you may ask why I believe that philosophy is unnecessary for biblical apologetics, even if I think it can be useful. Just because something is useful, that does not make it necessary or essential. I want to make certain you catch a glimpse of that distinction. The reason I suppose this is true is because Scripture teaches me that Scripture alone is sufficient for the task of biblical apologetics. I do not need anything outside of Scripture to be able to honor God in being prepared to provide a reply to everyone that asks me to account for the hope that is in me.

Paul, in writing to Timothy said the following: “…and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16) Note first that the “sacred writings” are able to give one wisdom that leads to salvation! Literally the language reads, to make you wise for salvation. The Scripture changes a person from being a fool to being wise. There is no two-step process here. Scripture does not merely make one wise so that they are now better informed to make a good decision to follow Christ. Such a view has no exegetical grounding in this text. The goal of Christian apologetics is to persuade men to fear God and obey His commandments. It is not to convince men that theism is true.

Paul went on to inform Timothy that all Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Scripture, if put on diligently, if weaved into the very fabric of our living and thinking, equips us to always be ready to reply to those who would ask us to give an account for the hope that is in us. This hope of course is the blessed Christian hope, the hope that we so long for which is the coming of our long awaited King.

To the Corinthians Paul writes, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:18) As long as the sacred writings have not made one wise for salvation, they remain a fool. And as long as they remain a fool, they will hold the view that the most blessed and sacred message ever given to humanity is nothing but utter foolishness. The Greek language here is where we get our word moron. The unbeliever thinks that only a moron would believe what genuine Christians actually believe. No amount of philosophy will change this fact. The nature of the unbeliever (metaphysical reality) is that they have no way to account for autonomous knowledge (man-centered epistemology). What changes the unbeliever is the very thing that they will not accept, regardless of how one presents it. The power of the Christian message to persuade men that Christ is Lord is not located in the form of the argument or the sophistication of words. The power that is contained within the gospel message transcends human reason. God does not change hearts via Aristotle. God’s work is supernatural.

Peter gives us all a command to reply to those who would ask us to give an account for the hope that is in us. He does not command us to go out, find every form of unbelieving thought that exists, and figure out the best way to refute it and if you do this, you will be a more effective apologist and stem the tide of unbelief. Stemming the tide of unbelief is the work of our sovereign Lord, not extravagant apologetic arguments immersed in pagan philosophy and Aristotelian logic. The command is that we be ready at all times. And that requires weaving Scripture into the very fabric of our lives and especially into our thought process. Scripture, not philosophy, is how the Christian replies and refutes every speculation of man that objects to Christian truth.

It is not the power of philosophical argumentation that places men in the Christian community. The Apostle Paul tells us very clearly what places us within the Christian community:   For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:26-31)

Response to William Lane Craig: Are Christians Utterly Unprepared to Defend Their Faith?

According to a recent article in the Christian Post (CP), Dr. William Lane Craig “believes there is an urgent need for the church to equip its members to give good responses to tough questions about their faith, especially in light of a cultural climate that has made it easier for atheists to be more outspoken, sometimes aggressively so, in their attacks on religious beliefs.”

Craig blames this bleak state of affairs in the Church on movements like the New Atheism. Seemingly, outspoken proponents of atheism have, over time, made good progress removing the stigma that is associated with atheism hence freeing more atheists to come out of their skeptical closets. According to Craig, “Christians should be concerned — and prepared to sway the irreligious.” CP captures Craig’s proposal succinctly: "I think that we need to present a sound case for why we believe that God exists and why as Christians that we believe that He has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus of Nazareth," said Craig. "I believe that if we can do that, we will win over many of these people who are now self-identifying as agnostic or atheist."

Craig goes on to say, "I think that many Christians are intimidated because atheists are often very aggressive," said Craig. "They will attack you personally, and they will do so in the name of reason and intellectual arguments. And many Christians feel utterly unprepared to give a defense of what they believe, and feel unprepared to answer the tough questions that their unbelieving friends will put to them."

I am in complete agreement with Craig’s view that there is an urgent need for Christian leaders to equip their members with the necessary tools to be able to submit to Scripture’s demand in 1 Peter 3:15, “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” After all, there is a biblical mandate for Christians to defend the truth, to refute those who contradict the gospel, and to provide a reply to anyone that asks for an account of the hope that is in them. Additionally, I think that answer should be in the form of persuasive rhetoric. I do mean rhetoric in a good sense of course. Nowadays rhetoric has a superfluous and erroneous deleterious association. We must work diligently to change that sad truth. The Christian is not interested in winning arguments and proving they, or their worldview are superior to the unbeliever in any way. The Christian that obeys 1 Peter 3:15 does so for two reasons: first, they seek to obey Christ above all else. Second, they hope to persuade unbelievers to forsake their unbelief! However, there is far more to the latter than this post can cover.

I think you might benefit from a glimpse of 1 Peter 3 before I summarize my remarks. Locating our text we cannot help but notice that verse 15 employs the post-positive conjunction δὲ, which the NAS translates, but. This clause actually begins up at v. 13, which reads, “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?” According to Runge, “δὲ is a coordinating conjunction like καὶ but it includes the added constraint of signaling a new development. The use of δὲ represents the writer’s choice to explicitly signal that what follows is a new, distinct development in the story or argument, based on how the writer conceived of it.” [Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 31] The use of this small conjunction does not only mark contrast (although it can), as many mistakenly believe. What the writer is doing with the use of this particle is breaking the discourse into smaller chunks. This makes it easier for the audience to follow the line of thought or the story, whatever the case may be. Since δὲ functions in this way, sound exegesis dictates that we recognize the marker, and interact with it. The exegete should follow the development the author is creating by the choices he makes.

The process is to go back to the next marker in order to analyze the development the writer is creating. When we do that, we read, “And do not be troubled,” and then we move back again, to the next marker, which reads, “and do not fear their intimidation,” and then we come to what is known in discourse analysis as a point-counterpoint marker. The beginning of v. 14 says, “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.” ἀλλά, according to Lunge, “provides a corrective to whatever it stands in contrast with in the preceding context, even if it is positive rather than negative. [Ibid, 56]

Bear with me just a little longer and hopefully the haze will lift. The fact that verse 14 begins with a point is reason for the exegete to identify the counterpoint. In this case it is easy. The counterpoint is v. 13, “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?” What English readers do not realize is that v. 13 also has a marker at the beginning, Καὶ. This particle joins v 13 with vv. 8-9. Here we have two paragraphs (8-12 & 13-22) essentially dealing with the issue of Christian apologetics.

Peter sums up his instructions in this section, beginning at v. 8 with the phrase, Τὸ δὲ τέλος̣. Literally it translates, “now the end.” It is the summary of what Peter wants to his audience to hear so far. The use of the phrase is a choice on the part of Peter to grab the attention of the audience. The phrase stands out! The longer discourse unit runs through the end of Chapter 4. The one with which we are concerned takes us to the end of chapter 3. Peter glides effortlessly from his exhortation around Christian virtue, to his desired responses from Christians to external ridicule, to his prompting to good works and not worrying about being harmed if they are doing good works. After quoting a portion of Ps. 34, he advances his discourse to a counterpoint, which takes the form of an interrogative. “Who is there to harm you?” The “point” he is getting at with his point/counter-point discourse is this: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.” The counterpoint is, “One part of a paired set of statements that is usually replaced by a more-important point.” [Runge] The more important point being that the one that suffers for righteousness sake is blessed! The point, counter-point set is used to explicitly link two things together and to draw attention to the “point” in the set. Added to the “point,” Peter uses another marker as he continues to development his argument.

Peter is most surely concerned with threatening behavior from outside the community. Craig uses the same word “intimidate” that Peter uses. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε is the phrase and it literally means do not fear their fear. Do not be frightened by their fear, if you will. The subjunctive with the negative forms a prohibition. As we move to v. 15, we see that Peter employs the use of the particle δὲ once again as he continues to development his argument. Concerning the use of the word apologia, here, Elliot comments, “Occasionally, in the NY the noun apologia (reply) us used in reference to a personal “defense” before juridical officials (Acts 22:1; 25:16; 2 Tim. 2:4). Elsewhere, however, it denotes a reply to accusations of a general rather than legal nature (1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1:7, 16). The term apologia is used here in this latter sense, as the context demonstrates. [Elliot, 1 Peter, 627] Consequently, it is not in keeping with sound exegesis to force the meaning of a legal defense on apologia in this context. Such a notion does not come into view given Peter’s context. The proposal that apologia has a formal or legal defense always attached to it is the fallacy of semantic obsolescence. This fallacy presupposes, in this case, that the way Plato used the word in 400 BC has not changed at all. [McManis, Biblical Apologetics] Clearly, the exegetical evidence does not support this conclusion. Words change their meaning over time.

The Christian is to continuously be prepared to provide a reply (apologia) to anyone and everyone that asks. That begs the question, asks for what? The Christian must always be ready to provide a reply to everyone that asks for an account of the Christian hope that resides within. The Greek word “λόγον” is often understood to be related to reason, as in rational justification. This is a bias attached to apologia by the philosopher. Peter uses this word just a few verses later (4.5) where we know such a use could not have been his intention. “But they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” It is an exegetical howler to conclude that Peter was thinking about rational justification as if he were speaking to a class of philosophy majors.

Christians are commanded to be ready to reply with an answer to anyone that asks them to give an account for the reason of the hope that is within them. Notice that the object isn’t even Christian truth. Christian truth comes into play, but only as the ground of the hope that Peter mentions. How does the context of 1 Peter 3 relate to the concerns of William Lane Craig?

First, Craig is correct that Christians must give some thought to being fully prepared at all times to reply to unbelievers when they ask us to give an account of the hope that is within. I could not agree more. I think that such preparation involves sound critical thinking skills. In other words, we must exercise our skills at discerning and testing the spirits. Intellectual indolence does not honor God or anyone else as far as that goes. It is the pastime of purely hedonistic fools to allow the mind to become dull. America has become a nation of dim-witted hedonists. Surely, in time, unless something changes, she will be dominated by another whose people have busied themselves with equipping the mind while dispensing with morality. Sin has the odd tendency to work that way. Not only do more Christians than ever before refuse to think critically, thanks for foolish leaders and rock-star pastors, many of them believe that critical thinking is immoral. This has to change. From that perspective, I agree with Craig’s basic assessment: we must improve apologetic awareness and skill in our communities.

Craig and I disagree in several areas. I want to focus on two fronts. First, Craig thinks that if we present a sound case for why we believe in God, we can stem the rising tide of atheism. The inference is that if we learn just how to reason in a way that the unbeliever agrees with and understands, we can persuade them of the truth of Christian theism. In other words, the reason so many people are self-identifying as atheists and agnostics is because Christians have really bad arguments. However, according to Scripture, that is not the reason for atheism. In fact, there are no true atheists if Scripture is true. According to Scripture the unbeliever holds the truth about God in utter contempt (Rom. 1). The Christian message, that God came in the flesh in order to redeem sinners from eternal damnation is just plain foolish to the unbeliever (1 Cor. 1). Finally, Paul did not follow Craig’s prescription either. “And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:4-5)

What Craig and many classical apologists fail to recognize is that Christians are not called to be philosophers and logicians. Moreover, the Christian’s ability to construct compelling arguments is not what changes hearts and minds. Indeed, it is not even what opens hearts and minds. The atheist and agnostic criteria for justification of beliefs, though they vary greatly, will always clash head-on with the Christian’s ultimate authority of justification, namely, Scripture. Only the power of God, which is revealed through the gospel of Jesus Christ by the word of the Holy Spirit on the human heart, can change that!