One overwhelming impression of these engagements is the way in which the intellectual defense of Christian faith attracts men. Both at Texas A&M and again at Miami every single student who got up to ask a question was a guy! I wondered if the girls are just shy. But then I remembered a lengthy clip Jan and I watched of cast members of Downton Abbey doing a Q&A with an audience in New York. Almost every person who came to the microphone at that event was a woman! It wasn’t until late into the evening that a man finally asked a question, which was remarked by all the cast members. Why the difference between that session and the ones I experienced?—simply because the Downton Abbey program is highly relational, which is more appealing to women, whereas my talks were principally intellectually oriented, which is more appealing to men.
Churches have difficulty attracting men, and the church is becoming increasingly feminized. I believe that apologetics is a key to attracting large numbers of men (as well as women) to church and to Christ. By presenting rational arguments and historical evidences for the truth of the Gospel, by appealing to the mind as well as the heart, we can bring a great influx of men into the Kingdom. I’m so pleased that the church in Canada seems to be awakening to this challenge! I’m convinced that we have the opportunity to revolutionize Western Christianity by reclaiming our intellectual heritage.
I could tell you many, many stories of what it was like for me being shut down by churches who were overly sensitive to the desires of women. In college, I and the other male students had every attempt to bring in scholars to lecture or debate shut down by female leadership. Every single week it was prayer walks, testimonies, hymn sings… over and over. Eventually, the more manly Christians just quit going. Later on, I witnessed apologetics being shut down in the church from the top down and from the bottom up, as well.
I remember one week an excited male friend invited me to his church because his male pastor was giving sermons using Hugh Ross and Gerald Shroeder books. He was trying to tie in the existence of God to cosmology. Well, I showed up the next Sunday to hear, and was disappointed. I could tell that the pastor wanted to go back to that subject, but he never really did. Later on, we found out that a female parishioner had complained that too much science and evidence had ruined her experience of feeling good and being comforted.
I could go on and on and on telling stories like this. To this day, I cannot stand being in a church unless that church has organized things like apologetic training classes, public lectures, public debates or public conferences. But that’s the minority of churches. The fact is that churches are attended far more by women than by men, and pastors are catering to women more than men. Not only will apologetics not be mentioned, but elements of feminism will creep into doctrine (egalitarianism) and all political issues will be avoided. Church has become a place to have good feelings, and it is far divorced from anything like evidence or politics which might be viewed as judgmental and divisive. And yet those are the things that men like to talk about most: right and wrong, public policy, evidential apologetics.
We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.
Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.
[…]Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.
Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).
In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.
[…]The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.
Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas,conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.
The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.
“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”
A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.
“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.
I often get asked by people why I push your Christians and conservatives so hard towards STEM fields, especially math and engineering and technology. The answer is simple. For Christians, this is the safest way to get a degree that will pay for itself. The risk you take when you borrow money to go into a non-STEM field is that you will face discrimination, be graded down, and be denied your degree. Every other minority gets affirmative action on the university campus except for evangelical Christians and Constitutional conservatives. And the worst thing that you can be is what I am, a black conservative male evangelical.
I was talking to one of my mentorees who is an graduate program in computer science the other day. I said to her that I find it more difficult to get motivated to keep up with the latest programming technologies than to keep up with apologetics and politics. She asked me why I chose computer science, then. And I said “because I was good at it, and I needed a way to be able to support a wife and four children”. I was interested in English and criminal law when I was younger, but I saw that those departments were among the most liberal by taking night classes at the local universities while I was still in high school. I actually got into trouble with the law professors because I always wanted the stiffest sentences for criminals.
So this is why I push young people to STEM, or more accurately, TEM. It’s because to come out of university as a Ted Cruz, you have to be the best by far. You have to be ten times as smart as the typical pot-smoking, drunken, promiscuous leftist college student. They get As just for parroting what the professors indoctrinate them with. It really is much safer to stick with quantitative fields, especially engineering.
Matt Flanagan and Justin Brierley do a great job in this debate getting the real issues on the table, although you have to wait until about 20 minutes in. Quick note about Bell. He has a BA in Pastoral Ministry, an MDiv, and a doctorate in Missional Organization. Now I have a suspicion of people with a background like that – my view is that they are more likely to be impractical and/or insulated from real life.
I also noticed that his politics are liberal, and that he is featured on the web site of GLAAD, a gay rights organization, for supporting gay marriage. Why do people support same-sex marriage? I think the most common reason is because they care more about the needs of adults than they care about the needs of children for a mother and a father. That’s where this guy is coming from – he is a people-pleaser, not someone who promotes the needs of children over the needs of adults.
At the start of the podcast, we learn that Bell was in the Seventh Day Adventist church, which is strongly invested in young-Earth creationism. Depending on how strict his young Earth view was, this closes off many of the best arguments for theism from science, such as the cosmological argument, the cosmic fine-tuning argument, the stellar habitability argument, the galactic habitability argument, the Cambrian explosion argument, and even the origin of life argument (to a degree). These are the arguments that make theism non-negotiable.
When he started his journey to atheism, he says that he was reading a book called “Religion Without God” by Ronald Dworkin.I was curious to see what view of faith was embraced by this book. Would it be the Biblical view of faith, trust based on evidence? Or the atheist view of faith, belief without evidence? I found an excerpt from the book in the New York Times, which said this:
In the special case of value, however, faith means something more, because our convictions about value are emotional commitments as well and, whatever tests of coherence and internal support they survive, they must feel right in an emotional way as well. They must have a grip on one’s whole personality. Theologians often say that religious faith is a sui generis experience of conviction. Rudolf Otto, in his markedly influential book, The Idea of the Holy, called the experience “numinous” and said it was a kind of “faith-knowledge.” I mean to suggest that convictions of value are also complex, sui generis, emotional experiences. As we will see… when scientists confront the unimaginable vastness of space and the astounding complexity of atomic particles they have an emotional reaction that matches Otto’s description surprisingly well. Indeed many of them use the very term “numinous” to describe what they feel. They find the universe awe-inspiring and deserving of a kind of emotional response that at least borders on trembling.
The excerpt quotes William James, who reduces religion to non-rational emotional experiences. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that view of faith is Biblical at all. Biblical faith is rooted in evidence. So clearly, what is important to this Dworkin is not objective evidence, it’s feelings. And this is what Bell was reading. He was not reading academic books like “Debating Christian Theism” to get the best arguments pro-and-con. He was looking for something that “resonated” with his feelings.
His journey was prompted by a female Episcopal priest friend who was asked by an atheist “what difference does religion make in my life?”. So, the framework of his investigation is set by a question that is not focused on truth, but is instead focused on emotions and life enhancement. Now Christianity might be a real stinker of a worldview for life enhancement, and the Bible warns us not to expect a bed of roses in this life. Christianity is not engineered to make you feel good or to make people like you, especially people like female Episcopal priests and GLAAD.
When talking about atheism, he is not concerned with whether atheism is logically consistent or consistent with objective evidence. He is concerned by whether atheists can have the experience of being moral without God. He sees an atheist who has moral preferences and seems like a good person by our arbitrary social standards, and he finds that as “valid” as religion. He is judging worldviews by whether people have their needs met, not by truth.
He says that as a pastor, his method of evangelizing atheists was to encourage them to “try on faith” “go through the motions” “participate in social justice outreach events”, etc. His goal was that they would “step into the stream of the Christian narrative and discover that it held value and meaning to them, and find that they actually believed it”. So his method of recommending Christianity to others has nothing to do with logic, evidence or truth. He is offering Christianity as life enhancement – not knowledge but a “narrative” – a story. If it makes you feel good, and it makes people like you, then you can “believe” it. He says that he was “a Christian by practice, a Christian by tradition”. Not a Christian by truth. Not a Christian by knowledge. He just picked a flavor of ice cream that tasted right to him, one that pleased his parents, friends and community. And now he has new friends and a new community, and he wants to please them and feel good about himself in this new situation.
He says that the Christian worldview is “a way of approaching reality” and “creating meaning” and “identifying meaning in the experiences we have”. And he says that there are “other ways of experiencing meaning”. He talks a lot about his correspondence with people and reading atheists, but nothing about reading Christian scholars who deal with evidence, like William Lane Craig, Stephen C. Meyer or Mike Licona.
Literal, literal quote: (23:35) “Well I think the only access we have to the question of God’s existence or not is how we feel. I mean there’s no falsifiable data that says God either exists or doesn’t exist. It’s all within the realm of our personal experience”. “If living as though God exists makes you happy and comforts you, then by all means, go for it”. This attitude is so popular in our churches today, and where does it end? In atheism. I had a fundamentalist woman telling me just last night how this feelings mysticism approach was the right approach to faith, and that the head knowledge approach was bad and offensive.
I’m going to cut off my summary there, but the podcast goes on for 45 minutes. Matt Flannagan is brilliant, and went far beyond what I wanted to say to this guy, but in such a winsome way. I recommend listening to the whole thing, and be clear where this fideistic nonsense ends – in atheism.
This podcast is a great warning against two views: 1) faith is belief without evidence and 2) religion not about truth, but about life enhancement. Three other related stories might also help: the story of Dan Barker,the story of Nathan Pratt and the story of Katy Perry. I think the Christian life requires a commitment to truth above all. If you think that you can get by as a Christian relying on hymn singing, church attending, mysticism and emotional experiences, you have another thing coming. This is a different time and a different place than 50 years ago, when that sort of naivete and emotionalism might have been safe. Now we have many challenges – some intellectual and some not. To stand in this environment, it’s going to take a little more than piety and emotions.
People today are very much looking for religion to meet their needs. And this is not just in terms of internal feelings, but also peer approval and mystical coincidences. They expect God to give them happy feelings. They expect God to give them peer approval. They expect God to make every crazy unBiblical, unwise selfish plan they invent “work out” by miracle. They feel very constrained by planning and moral boundaries, believing in a “God of love” who is primarily concerned with their desires and feelings, not with rules and duties. Nothing in the Bible supports the idea that a relationship with God is for the purpose of making us feel happy and comfortable. When people realize that they will be happier in this life without having to care what God thinks, they will drop their faith, and there are plenty of non-Christians to cheer them on when they do it.
I would say to all of you reading that if the opinions of others causes you to stumble then meditate on the following passage: 1 Cor 4:1-4 too. There is only one person’s opinion that matters, ultimately.
Note that this talk is given by a very conservative evangelical Christian who is speaking to Christians. So this is not intended for a non-Christian audience. However, non-Christians are free to tune in if you want to hear a really passionate, fire-breathing conservative evangelical go non-linear over the superficial turn that the evangelical church has taken. If you are familiar with J.P. Moreland’s view that spiritual warfare is really about disputing speculations and falsehoods using logic and evidence, then you’ll know the meaning of the term “spiritual warfare” he has in mind. When he says spiritual warfare, he means apologetics: knowledge and preparation.
I would really caution you not to listen to this if you are not passionate about defending God’s honor. It will overwhelm and upset you. Having said that, this lecture reflects my convictions about the churches need to drop anti-intellectualism and take up apologetics. And not pre-suppositional apologetics, which I think is ineffective, but evidential apologetics. Evidential apologetics is effective, which is why everyone in the Bible used it.
Simon Brace is the Director of Evangelism of Southern Evangelical Seminary. Simon was born in Zimbabwe and grew up in South Africa. Simon has a construction background and has lived in a number of countries and travelled extensively. He has a MA in Apologetics and BA in Religious Studies and is currently working on an MA in Philosophy at SES. Simon leads TEAM which is the missions program of SES on local, national, and international trips. In addition, Simon has worked with Ratio Christi at SES, and has an extensive knowledge of Ratio Christi’s history and operation. Simon currently resides in North Carolina with his wife Nel and children, Eva and Olivia.
I liked the second part of the lecture more than the first part, so there is less summarizing of the first part.
What does the New Testament say about spiritual warfare in Ephesians?
Christian slogans about spiritual warfare sound pious, but they are mistaken
Today, Christianity is focused on piety and zeal, not on study and knowledge
The result is that Christianity in the West is in a state of erosion and decline
What we are doing about spiritual warfare is not working to stop the decline
Preaching, publishing, programs, retreats, etc. are not very useful for spiritual warfare
Enthusiasm and passion without knowledge are not very useful for spiritual warfare
The Church has a theoretical understanding of spiritual warfare, but no real capability
Doesn’t work: trying to make Christianity seem popular and cool
Doesn’t work: making Christian music and art that non-Christians will like
Doesn’t work: pastors trying to be relevant by having cool clothes and cool haircuts
Doesn’t work: fundamentalists getting angry about peripheral issues
Doesn’t work: not read things apart from the Bible and sound foolish when speaking in the public square
Doesn’t work: church leaders think that careful exegesis and expository preaching is a good answer to skeptics
What works: we need to train people who are prepared and willing to defend the truth of the Christian faith
Evangelicalism has a deep suspicion of reading things outside the Bible, so they are unable to refute anything
Evangelicals are hyper-spiritualized and hysterical, focusing on demons, prophecy and end-times, etc.
Evangelicals have a pagan view of using their minds to alter reality, which is irrational and superstitious
Evangelicals like conservative celebrity preachers who do nothing to correct anti-intellectualism in the church
Evangelicals are focused on their personal relationships with Jesus instead of their whole worldview
Evangelicals focus too much on homeschooling and not enough on how to impact the secular universities
Church programs for youth are about “strumming guitars and eating pizza once a week”, not apologetics
Evangelicals have an over-inflated view of the effectiveness of their (non-intellectual) evangelism methods
The primary focus and primary responsibility in spiritual warfare is not dealing with supernatural evil
The real focus and responsibility in spiritual warfare is specified in 2 Cor 10:3-5
What we ought to be doing is defeating speculations (false ideas), using logical arguments and evidence
Defending the faith is not memorizing Bible verses and throwing them out randomly
Defending the faith is not just preaching the gospel
Demolishing an argument requires understanding arguments: premises, conclusions, the laws of logic
We should exchange our pious Bible memorizing skills and the like for a class in critical thinking
The New Testament requires that elders be capable of refuting those who oppose sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)
It is not enough to preach a good sermon, elders have to be able to defend the Christian faith as well
People who run conservative seminaries do not mandate that M.Div graduates study apologetics
Famous pastors like Driscoll, Begg, etc. need to teach other pastors to emphasize apologetics in church
People in church won’t engage the culture unless they have reasons and evidence to believe Christianity is true
We need a balance of both piety and intellectual engagement
We need to make our evangelism rooted in the intellect in order to have an influence at the university
Mission organizations also have a responsibility to defend the faith and not merely preach (1 Peter 3:15)
And here is his closing quote from C.S. Lewis:
To be ignorant and simple now not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground would be to throw down our weapons and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.
I was really humbled by this, because I sort of knew that the church was anti-intellectual, but I didn’t really reflect on how everyone else in society thinks that we are anti-intellectual. It’s troubling. The quickest way to make Biblical Christianity respectable again is to hit the books and defeat all comers in intellectual disputations. Are we ready to make the sacrifices to do that?.
A Michigan man lost his job after he pulled a gun to rescue a woman who was being stabbed to death, but he said he does not regret his split-second decision.
“I would do it all over again,” Didarul Sardertold a local Fox affiliate. “If I could save this woman’s life over a job. I can get another job.”
Now he won’t have to look for another job. Mr. Sarder’s bosses reversed their unpopular decision and offered the 32-year-old his old job back as a valet service supervisor at a General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan, The Washington Post reported.
Warren Mayor Jim Flouts praised the decision in a Facebook post, calling Mr. Sarder a “hero” and saying he “probably saved” a “woman from being murdered.” He noted that Mr. Sarder has a valid concealed pistol license.
“Had he not legally exercised his Second Amendment rights, this woman would probably not be with us today,” Mr. Flouts wrote. “He is employed by a GM-contracted valet service. Right after it happened, someone in authority asked him off the premises because he violated company rules with a gun. That was absolutely the wrong response to this hero. However that decision was over-ruled by higher ups and he now has his job back.
“Heroes should be rewarded not terminated,” he added. “Didarul is a resident of Warren and a resident that we can all be proud of!”
On Wednesday morning, Mr. Sarder was heading into work as usual when he heard a woman crying for help.
“The lady kept saying, ‘I’m dying, someone help,’ and it was just a natural reaction,” Mr. Sarder told Fox. “I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had like half a second to think, and I unholstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife.”
The woman, another employee at the GM center, was stabbed right outside the main entrance of the building. Warren police said the suspect, a 32-year-old woman, came to see the employee. The two argued in the lobby, then went outside. The suspect is accused of pulling a knife and stabbing the victim multiple times in the neck, back and abdomen. The suspect has since been identified as the daughter of the victim, Fox reported.
Mr. Sarder told the suspect to stay put until she was arrested by police.
Officials said the victim, who has been identified as Stephanie Kerr, was in critical condition and was lucky the stabbing didn’t continue any longer, Fox reported.
But Mr. Sarder was fired on the spot and then escorted off the property.
“He said, ‘You shouldn’t have had a firearm here. After this is done he needs to be escorted off the property. He’s not welcome back here.’ I was really bummed out. I got a little emotional,” Mr. Sarder told Fox of the ordeal.
Again, as in the vast majority of defensive handgun usages, no shots were fired. Instead, the gun was displayed to the criminal and the criminal stopped committing the crime. That is the normal case of defensive handgun usage by a concealed carry permit holder.
Sarder said he was glad he didn’t have to shoot the attacker.
“If I can neutralize the threat without having to fire, get to save the victim’s life and the suspect’s life,” Sarder said.
I like this part of the Washington Times story the best:
“I would do it all over again,” Didarul Sardertold a local Fox affiliate. “If I could save this woman’s life over a job. I can get another job.”
This is something that I think is quintessentially masculine. I am not saying that a woman could or would not say those words. I am saying that this is something that every man is expected to say. This is the true definition of manliness – using strength to defeat evil, and then refusing to bow down to the politically correct, moral relativist, moral equivalence, gun-grabbers on the secular left. Men know right from wrong. Men use force to protect the weak. Men don’t apologize for being men. Period.
I guess we live in a world now where it’s considered a bad thing by the secular left to battle against evil. Somehow, this compassionate, non-judgmental, tolerant nanny instinct to make everyone be friends at the end has taken over, and we are no longer confident about condemning evil, and praising good.
Learn about the issue
To find the about guns and self-defense, look in the academic literature. Here are two books I really like for that.