Abraham Kuyper and his successor Herman Bavinck are usually considered the “fathers of Neo-Calvinism.” I will spare you the details of what Neo-Calvinism is since more competent folks have already done so. But, I consider myself a Neo-Calvinist simply because I love the works of and adhere to the great majority of Kuyper and Bavinck’s theology (there’s always exceptions), which I think is (generally) biblical and respective of church history. I’m talking about Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism and The Work of the Holy Spirit (free online), and Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, Our Reasonable Faith (in theology recommended reading; it’s second best to Reymond for the best 1 volume systematic theology in English, in my opinion), and The Philosophy of Revelation.

I got my degree in theology (last year) from one of the foremost Neo-Calvinist institutions in the United States, Dordt College (the other major one is Trinity Christian College; Calvin College may loosely fit under this category as it is a sister CRC college to Dordt, but it is much looser and, indeed, more liberal). Both colleges are considered “Kuyperian” and “Dooyeweerdian” (from the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd). I’ve had the unusual advantage of learning the ins and outs of Neo-Calvinist theology in the past five years. I’ve been a tutor in theology, a TA in the theology department, presented papers at two regional conferences on behalf of Dordt, had lunch and dinner with Dooyeweerd’s successor Roy Clouser, etc. Here’s what I’ve noticed, at least, in my experience:

1. Neo-Calvinists are very critical of mainstream fundamentalism. “Dualism” is an incredibly dirty word. Why? For two reasons: A) Dooyeweerd’s non-dualist and non-monistic, non-reductionistic philosophy of modal spheres, B) Kuyper’s insistence that all things be reclaimed under the Lordship of Christ, which means there is no such thing as a dualism between “sacred” and “secular.” All spheres of life should be reclaimed under the dominion of Jesus Christ. As such, mainstream evangelicals who assert the opposite – that we should completely avoid “non-Christian music” or just entire sectors of society and creation, etc. – get written off as “dualistic” and “non-Reformed” and a score of other derogatory/pejorative labels.
2. Neo-Calvinists are critical of the inerrancy of Scripture (i.e. Chicago Statement of Faith) because it is often championed by non-Kuyperians and often (eek!) conservative evangelical dirty right-wing fundamentalists. One only has to click here to see this in action in the 2007 editorial written by one of Calvin College’s religion professors (this short essay will be critiqued later on this blog). Neo-Calvinists have often claimed that Kuyper and Bavinck and even Calvin never held to the doctrine of inerrancy (as stated by Sproul, Vanhoozer, Grudem, etc.); it is simply an invention of American fundamentalism and fundamentalist Calvinists at Princeton during the turn of the 1900s.  Reformed theologians who believe in inerrancy are (supposedly) grossly mistaken, and not truly representative of Calvin or the Reformation or of the Bible’s teaching.
3. Neo-Calvinists not only believe, but actively pursue the proclamation of theistic evolution in the “mythic” account of Genesis. Calvin College professors are the most anti young-earth creationist Reformed Christians that I know of. Book after book, they make their argument against not just young-earth creationism, but, as a whole movement, against all forms of creationism in favor of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create the world). And of course, Bavinck and Kuyper (supposedly) have their back.

But, after reading Kuyper and Bavinck myself, I’ve learned that hardly any of this is true. That’s what I can’t understand about today’s Neo-Calvinism. Kuyper and Bavinck are anything but Neo-Calvinists, if we are to believe that today’s Neo-Calvinist institutions are representing them correctly.

1. Bavinck and Kuyper – in the line of Calvin – insisted that the Scriptures are inerrant in the very same sense (although less exhaustively) as Warfield at Princeton and today’s Reformed theologians (Sproul, Carson, Godfrey, Vanhoozer, Grudem, etc.) who adhere to the Chicago statement of Inerrancy (this argument will come in the next several blog articles, but the first in this series regarding Kuyper can be found here.).
2. Kuyper and Bavinck railed against Darwinian evolution, not made room for it in Genesis. One only has to read Kuyper’s lecture “Evolution” (1899), which contains (among dozens of other bombs) “Gentlemen, I do not hesitate one moment to brand such reckless play with the most sacred things as the most cowardly quasi-religious invention ever put into words. Why not be honest, have the courage of one’s conviction, and frankly admit that evolution is not only atheistic but antitheistic, and would ban all religion as human self-deceit?” I also noticed that in the same context where Kuyper distances himself from Neo-Orthodoxy and critics of the infallible Scriptures (Work of the Holy Spirit, 77), Kuyper goes against (today’s) Neo-Calvinist trend of using the label “myth” for Genesis (at least in the sense that it undermines historical narrative:

Of course, what’s amazing is that in this one paragraph (see the fuller thoughts of Kuyper here), Kuyper disassociates himself with virtually every major Neo-Orthodox and liberal perversion of the doctrine of infallibility/inerrancy, leaving him standing on only one possible island: the conservative orthodoxy today’s Neo-Calvinists seem to despise. Indeed, if Bavinck is so loose in regards to inerrancy (as so many of today’s liberal-leaning theologians insist, both Reformed and non-Reformed – i.e. McKim, Rogers, McGowan, etc.), it is, at the very least interesting, why someone like Bavinck’s translator would casually refer to the Chicago Statement in his affirmation (“The Bible is infallible. And it is inerrant…”) of inerrancy.

I’ve already documented Bavinck’s disgust with Darwinian evolution here and here.

It’s just confusing that today’s Neo-Calvinism is so incredibly warped from the view of Calvin, Kuyper, and Bavinck. It’s just as confusing, in my opinion, as to why such things like the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy are portrayed as a standard for “fundamentalism” and, why creationism (even old-earth) is dubbed just as “non-Reformed,”  as if anything in the written works of Calvin, Kuyper, or Bavinck leaned in such a direction. More to come…

I just got back from the 2010 Desiring God Conference for Pastors.

First things first. The weather was horrible arriving to the conference. I’m convinced that if we had traveled two hours later this past Monday (Feb. 1), the slush and snow would have turned into ice and we wouldn’t have made it (at least without crashing and burning). But God is gracious. All three of our vans arrived safely, and we eventually met up with the other 2,500+ pastors inside the Minneapolis Convention Center.

And, what were in those three vans? Simply, the most energetic, knowledgeable, and young group of Reformed pastors I’ve ever heard of. It was (and continues to be) supremely joyful to be part of a fellowship where the majority of folks are people who know Greek, love church history, and stand in awe (instead of disgust) at God’s complete and total sovereignty over creation. In a world filled with empty spiritualism, captivated by meaningless entertainment, and fallen into a decline of doctrinal irrelevance, I am convinced that God is breathing new life into the church of our age through these men – men with solid theology, selfless and compassionate hearts, superb skills in preaching, and men with wives who faithfully back their stride every step of the way.  Indeed, the pastors, associate pastors, church planters and other ministers of the North American Baptist Conference in the Midwest region have been a tremendous blessing in my life as an adult Christian. I expect big things to keep happening in South Dakota.

Of course, one of the primary driving forces behind this growing flame is the ministry of pastor and scholar, John Piper. Piper continues to be a hero to Midwestern Reformed Baptist pastors. He chose Sam Storms to be the primary speaker (delivering three sessions) of the conference. Dr. Storms received his Ph.D from University of Texas at Dallas (diss. on Jonathan Edwards), taught at Wheaton College, and is currently the President of Enjoying God Ministries in Kansas City. As Piper himself said during his Tuesday afternoon lecture, “we’re preaching the same thing because we both drank from the same wells…Edwards, CS Lewis…” Storms and Piper went to great lengths to focus on “Christian hedonism,” particularly through the lens of Lewis and Edwards so much that during the Q&A session it was asked why they appeared to be more concerned about CS Lewis and Edwards than the text of Scripture! This was a slight concern for several pastors who had been to the conference before and looked forward to exegetical preaching, but it was truly nothing more than that – a slight concern. Piper and Storms summarized their position regarding the biblical reality of hedonism (see Piper’s best-selling Desiring God), and continued on to more interesting topics, such as theological anthropology and the subjective/objective experience of worship and religious affection.

As an ongoing student of Neurophilosophy, I ate every word of Piper’s tangent regarding the soul/mind, the intermediate state, and objective/subjective experience in connection (or disconnection) with the brain (see 29:00 in the video below):

Here were a few major neurophilosophical/theological anthropological quotes from Piper in that video:

“I’m not going to have a body 10 minutes after I die…There is a supra-physical John Piper. He’s a real person and he’s not identical with his body. But here, he is way interwoven with his body…and therefore any kind of spiritual affection I have is also perceived in some sense physically…the danger is that you can identify the spiritual with the physical…spiritual affections means that’s not it…the physical is good…but that’s not the essence of it.”

Even better, was Eric Mason’s lecture on “The Role of Suffering in Sanctification.” This brother can preach! (free audio download here) I honestly haven’t heard a more passionate and theologically sound sermon/lecture by a contemporary preacher on the sanctifying role of suffering.

The conference bookstore had it’s usual fabulous selection, although not terribly impressive “discounts.” The vast majority of the books offered did not beat Amazon.com (I checked the bookstore prices against Amazon with my Blackberry while browsing). There were many free books from the conference that I won’t bother to list. But, free or not, below is a picture of the 30+ volumes I came home with:

Notice An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards.

Bob Blincoe (from Phoenix, AZ) also delivered a wonderful lecture on the story of his Curd and Muslim orientated missions organization and the joys, sufferings, and stark realities of being a foreign missionary.

But, all in all, the real highlight of the conference really had nothing to do with the conference. I got to experience my pastor “sleep preach.” Yes, I’ve heard of talking and walking in one’s sleep, but not preaching. It was 4am and Pastor Luke was sitting up beside me expositing something about “principles and parenting.” Meanwhile, another pastor in the other bed in our hotel room was screaming “no! no! no!” around the same time. I was scared, entertained, and quite speechless. It appears that, indeed, pastors’ wives truly don’t get a break!

In short, the conference gets a 4.5/5 stars from RealApologetics.org:

• Content: 4 (needed more expositional and exegetical preaching like Mason, although all lectures were thorough)
• Organization and Format: 5 (excellent location, facilities, and organization of everything from meals, to registration, to transportation, breaks, etc.)
• Speaker Choice: 4.5 (Piper only spoke once, perhaps he should have gone twice and had Sam Storms be cut back to two lectures instead of three; but all speakers were excellent in their representation of the conference topic)

Inerrancy and The Reformed Faith of Today and Yesterday

Many semi-liberal, Reformed thinkers who are anti-conservative-evangelical  (i.e. Dordt College profs, Calvin College profs, Thinknet, Roy Clouser and his cronies, etc.) have often tried to separate Old Princeton’s rigorous work on the doctrine of inspiration from Neo-Calvinists’ (Bavinck and Kuyper) doctrine of Scripture. That is, they try to divide Dutch Reformed Theology from American Reformed Theology on the grounds that each side had different views of biblical inerrancy. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible even assert that Bavinck and Kuyper were right in reacting to post-Reformation scholasticism instead of getting duped into the Scottish Common Sense mindset of Old Princeton. They also assert that Princeton was right in signing the Auburn Confession during the 1929 split – the same document that led Machen and Van Til to leave and start Westminster Seminary – revealing the underlying attitude of Rogers and McKim.

This assertion, of course, along with the claim that today’s doctrine of inerrancy is itself an unreasonable invention of both post-Scholastic Reformed thought (Rogers and McKim) and American dispensationalist fundamentalism (Marsden), has been refuted over and over, essay by essay, book by book ever since the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy came out in 1978 (see the works on this page on the RealApologetics.org Recommended Reading, for just a few references). We are left wondering, then, why any Reformed Christian should be chided for believing in a conservative view of biblical inerrancy (i.e. Chicago statement), since the doctrine is, in fact, the common belief of historical Reformed and Neo-Calvinist theologians. Indeed, today’s doctrine of inerrancy is not the product of mistaken ideologies; it is the result of centuries of consistent thinking, God-honoring attitudes, and the ministry-tested lives of Reformed pastors, theologians, and apologists. Inerrancy may be a loaded term, and the doctrine of inerrancy may be extremely unpopular in the masses of today’s theological circles. But I firmly believe (and would argue) that the doctrine of inerrancy rightly finds a home in Reformed theology.

To put it in layman’s terms, some liberal-leaning scholars have been trying to re-write 20th century, Reformed history to escape the historical and legitimate popularity of the doctrine of inerrancy in Reformed theology. They wish their Reformed tradition was more liberal so that their liberalism seemed more reasonable. They wish Bavinck wasn’t so anti-evolutionist since theistic evolution is popular in the biology and astronomy departments of most of today’s Reformed seminaries and colleges. Likewise, they wish that Bavinck and Kuyper didn’t have a conservative view on the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Why? Because they want to keep the “Reformed” label without being conservative at the same time. They refuse to endorse the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, albeit for political reasons, career reasons, reputational reasons, or because they misunderstand it to be a litmus test for “fundamentalism,” or just because they have actually read it and outright disbelieve it. Ironically, they have the guts to claim Kuyper and Bavinck’s view of Scripture is totally different (i.e. organic vs. mechanical, functional infallibility vs. inerrancy, infallibility of content and not of form, etc.) than that of Warfield and the classical Westminster standards, one that does not actually resolve in what we would today call “the doctrine of inerrancy.” This simply is not true.

In short, semi-liberal Reformed Christians are trying to revise history so as to recruit historical support for their poor view of Scripture. Warfield, Hodge, Machen and the others would surely sign on to today’s Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, but not Kuyper, we’re chided. In researching for my paper presentation at the 2010 “Calvinism for the 21st Century” Conference, I’ve realized (among other things) that this assertion is misleading.

Below is a list of quotations on Scripture from Abraham Kuyper, author of Lectures on Calvinism, The Work of the Holy Spirit, as well as the founder of Free University in Amsterdam and its theology department chair, and former Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Abraham Kuyper and the Inerrancy of Scripture

“Without a trace of doubt or hesitation, we should acknowledge the entire Holy Scripture…as infallible in what it communicates to us.” Dictaten Dogmatiek, 1.66

“Parallel with the mystery of the incarnation runs the mystery of inscripturation. In both cases the Word of God comes to us, in the manger as Emmanuel in the world where we live, in H. Scripture as Emmanuel in the world of our thoughts and ideas. Both revelations of the Word belong together, just as our living and the consciousness of that living belong together. Thus both mysteries must either be rejected together or confessed together and, if confessed, on then on the same ground…There is a primary author and a secondary author…Everything depends here on the right insight that the Word has become flesh in Christ and is stereotyped in Scripture. Thus Scripture must be…truly human and truly divine.” Dictaten Dogmatiek, 1.75

“If God himself had come and had dictated the Bible to stenographers, it would not look differently than it now does.” 1.77

Scripture expresses content “in a divinely errorless fashion” (1.86), “goddelijk feilloos”

The form of Scripture, Kuyper says, is “infallibilis” (1.73).

“Holy Scripture retains its divine authority only in those circles where at the same time its formal infallibility is confessed.” (2.128)

Kuyper also points out in 2.183 that “forgetting, lying and unintentional falsifying corrupt all oral tradition,” but not in the written tradition of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, says Gaffin, “Scripture is necessary and as such is free from all error, unintentional mistakes as well as deception.” 273, Richard Gaffin, “Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?”

“And yet in both prophet and apostle inspiration is the wholly extraordinary operation of the Holy Spirit whereby, in a manner for us incomprehensible and to them not always conscious, they were kept from the possibility of error.” 1.208 (italics in Dutch original)

“As by education the Lord frequently prepares a maiden for her still unknown, future husband, so did the Holy Spirit prepare Paul, John, and Peter for their work. He directed their lives, circumstances, and conditions; He caused such thoughts, meditations, and even words to arise in their hearts as the writing of the New Testament required. And while they were writing these portions of the Holy Scripture, that one day would be the treasure of the universal Church in all ages, a fact not understood by them, but by the Holy Spirit, He so directed their thoughts as to guard them against mistakes and lead them into the truth. He foreknew what the complete New Testament Scripture ought to be, and what parts would belong to it. As an architect, by his mechanics, prepares the various parts of the building, afterward to fit them in their places, so did the Holy Spirit by different workers prepare the different parts of the New Testament, which afterward He united in a whole.” The Work of the Holy Spirit, 172

“Whether Moses and those earlier writers were conscious of their inspiration is immaterial; the Holy Spirit directed them, brought to their knowledge what they were to know, sharpened their judgment in the choice of documents and records, so that they should decide aright, and gave them a superior maturity of mind that enabled them always to choose the right word…whether He dictates directly, as in the Revelation of St. John, or governs the writing indirectly, as with historians and evangelists, the result is the same: the product is such in form and content as the Holy Spirit designed, an infallible document for the Church of God.” The Work of the Holy Spirit, 77 (emphasis mine)

“The distinguishing mark of inspiration, however, above everything else is that it guarantees absolute accuracy. The singular character of the writers of the Old and New Testament lies in the fact that the stamp of truth and certainty is impressed upon their writings. The Holy Spirit so leads their spirit that in them the results of sin are cut off and prevented. The distinguishing mark is not relative, but absolute.” (Dictaten 2.76)

“Not as though critical and historical examination were prohibited. Such endeavor for the glory of God is highly commendable. But as the physiologist’s search for the genesis of human life becomes sinful if immodest or dangerous to unborn life, so does every criticism of Holy Scripture become sinful and culpable if irreverent or seeking to destroy the life of God’s Word in the consciousness of the church.” Holy Spirit, 64

There is no doubt about it. Kuyper’s view on the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is far closer to something like G.K. Beale’s perspective in The Erosion of Inerrancy and The Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, than, say, that of Peter Enns, Jack Rogers, Donald McKim, etc. Inspiration and inerrancy goes to the very level of words, as Kuyper explicitly asserts numerous times. Why? Because the Spirit’s activity involves working at the level of words. It’s not as if only the “message” of the Bible is inspired and inerrant, while the material text and words are not. Furthermore, Kuyper, like Bavinck and Calvin, has no problem with accommodation and the principle of condescension – when it does not imply that errors are present in the text.

Divine accommodation simply says that God stoops down in Scripture. God accommodates Himself to human language and human contexts, as Calvin so boldly stated:

“The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and the other Prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity, as we will see men sometimes very readily pretended an incapacity to understand, when anything deep or recondite is submitted to their notice.” Commentary on the Psalms (136:7)

This idea of accommodation is present in the writings of Christians in nearly every age of church history. And in Reformed theology, it is certainly common. However, accommodation simply does not entail errancy, at least for Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, Van Til, Sproul, and virtually every other major authoritative Reformed thinker and apologist. Indeed, it is a grave mistake to even associate the proper doctrine of divine accommodation of the Reformation and post-Reformation with one that requires the presence of error.

“The Reformers and their scholastic followers all recognized that God must in some way condescend or accommodate himself to human ways of knowing in order to reveal himself. This accomodatio occurs specifically in the use of human words and concepts for the communication of the law and the gospel, but it in no way implies the loss of truth or the lessening of scriptural authority. The accomodatio or condencensio refers to the manner or mode of revelation, the gift of the wisdom of infinite God in infinite form, not to the quality of the revelation or to the matter revealed. A parallel idea occurs in the orthodox Protestant distinction between theologia archetypa (q.v.) and theologia ectypa (q.v). note that the sense of accomodatio that implies not only a divine condescension, but also a use of time-bound and even erroneous statements as a medium for revelation, arose in the eighteenth century in the thought of Johann Semler and his contemporaries and has no relation either to the position of the Reformers or to that of the Protestant scholastics, either Lutheran or reformed.” Richard Muller. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), s.v. accomodatio, 19.

In conclusion, the burden of proof, both historically and Scripturally, is on the Reformed Christian who denies the doctrine of inerrancy, not on the Christian who adheres to it.  Inerrancy is the default, not the corruption, for Reformed theology. Indeed, if the Bible is completely truthful, then the Bible is, inevitably, completely inerrant.

Seminary education is no little decision. Deciding who and what and where your mind will be influenced has always played an irreplaceable role in the historical lives of educators, ministers, leaders, heroes, and heretics. After some hard thought about where money, time, and energy should be spent, I’ve come to have a thorough change of mind.

I chose to pursue an MA in Christian Thought at Bethel Seminary for several reasons:

1. The degree coursework: Balanced in its approach, including philosophy, biblical studies, theology, and apologetics. I love integration, which I firmly believe should come before specialization (Ph.D).
2. The degree structure and location: I would be able to work full time and still earn the degree by working from home. And although two 2-week intensives were required per year for the 3 year program, I would only have to drive 6 hours to the Twin Cities, and could stay with friends I know.
3. The degree quality: Although this quickly became one of the main reasons I left Bethel, I initially got on board with the assurance of ATS accreditation and a general sense of high-quality education in comparison with other seminaries. But, as we’ll see, this was quickly defrauded in my mind.
4. To hopefully impact my historical tradition (mainstream evangelical Baptist) with Reformed theology: I have no interest in regurgitating Calvinism and Kupyerianism and the sovereign grace of God to people who have been learning these things their whole lives. Mainstream evangelicals need Reformed theology, not CRC pastors’ kids. And with a more mainstream degree, I might have a better chance of teaching at a similar institution in the future, thereby giving me opportunities to feed the solid meat of Reformed theology to those in spiritual hunger.

I left Bethel Seminary after two quarters (16+ credits) and enrolled at Reformed Theological Seminary for the following reasons:

1. The Christian Thought program at Bethel was a happenin’ project back in the day, but not anymore. Dr. David Clark, who was the head of the program, is now the Provost over the entire university and seminary. Gregory Boyd, who also taught at Bethel, is now teaching elsewhere. Both their books (Letter’s to a Skeptic and Dialogical Apologetics), are still standard reading for the apologetics class. But as of now (2010), the program is not being spearheaded or led by any major, active Christian apologist. Meanwhile, the thoroughly published John Frame, Richard Pratt, Harold OJ Brown, and others guide the MA of Religion at RTS.
2. The degree structure and location. While it seemed handy at first, the four week per year seminary on-campus intensives (for three years) are both expensive and disruptive to one’s career/ministry life. While these intensives tack on at least an additional $1-2k to the normal tuition load per year, RTS requires only two intensives for the total degree and less than a week for each. Interestingly, the MAR at RTS is just as ATS accredited as Bethel. Moreover, Bethel’s structure is superbly rigid. The intensive schedules are definitive, as well as the course times, the due dates, the course load, etc. RTS is vastly different, requiring only a slight priority of order for the first few classes. Otherwise, students take whatever classes they want for the degree at any time and can take as many as they want. RTS also has a built-in integrative thesis project, ensuring that students have the necessary research experience if they want to pursue a Ph.D. The MACT at Bethel, however, without serious modification, does not even make room for a thesis track at all. So, as far as time, money, and convenience goes, RTS was a no-brainer.
3. The degree quality, teaching, and disposition.
   1. Philosophy of Scripture. During my first on-campus intensive at Bethel Seminary, the entire InMinistry (distance-ed) student body received a rather unpleasant and spontaneous lecture by one of the InMinistry organizers. I was sitting in the back when she began her plug for the gender-neutral TNIV Bible (now out of print). As best as I can paraphrase and remember, she said “the whole seminary uses the TNIV…we’re not in the ancient Bible days anymore, we don’t use that outdated language, we’re in the 21st century, people!” I later found out that students had been getting docked in exegetical/biblical studies papers for using non-gender-neutral Bibles. Of course, the whole time I was thinking, Are we not allowed to use the Greek New Testament for our exegetical papers? I don’t know why I was surprised, it wasn’t as if Bethel seminary students were required to take Greek and Hebrew. In fact, they aren’t even available to MACT students. One wonders how a student can truly engage in Christian Thought without at least having some knowledge of biblical languages and the linguistic tools through which Christian Thought itself emerged. RTS, of course, provides both Greek and Hebrew for all MA Virtual students. What had replaced these essential courses at Bethel?
   2. Philosophy of “Spiritual formation.” Through the politics of seminary education, accreditation, and sources of funding, the academic MA degree at Bethel has become saturated with irrelevant and unnecessary coursework under the increasingly popular category of “Spiritual formation.” Quite oblivious to the fact that theology changes a person’s heart and the way a person lives, much of the focus of the Spiritual formation branch (1/3 of the Bethel Seminary vision) involves nothing more than abstract and fuzzy concepts of “social systems,” racial discrimination, and faith traditions. Some of the reading was helpful (i.e. Spiritual Theology by Simon Chan), but the class essentially lacked a God-centered approach so much that I was actually chided by a professor for not being focused enough on myself in my assignments. I could understand trying to be more reflective and personal later in the degree after covering the basics, such as God’s existence, God’s holiness, God and creation, God’s truth, God’s revelation, etc. But having learned nothing about any of those, it seemed rather foolish to jump into the baffling maze of self-oriented activities that seemed far closer to jumping through hoops than actual education.
   3. Bad Theology. Besides touting a poor Bible translation and docking students for not using it, Gregory Boyd and his open theism left a serious mark on Bethel Seminary. It is quite common to come across professors and students who openly say God has nothing to do with evil events. Open theism teaches that God is “doing the best he can with the knowledge that he has,” and, as such, the God of open theism lacks both omnipotence and omniscience. God continually fails to bring about His desires. He is frustrated by the stubborn wills of men. He is not the God of Scripture who defines the beginning from the end, makes things happen just by speaking, and who saves unfailingly His people from the punishment of sin. Of course, even more disturbing as one of my professor’s doctrine of Scripture, which is summarized by his own words: “Truths are in the Bible because they are true; they are not true because they are in the Bible.” (This unbiblical view of Scripture has been thoroughly critiqued here.)
   4. Lack of Good Theology. As soon as I received my reading list for Systematic Theology I, I decided I could not justify spending 2.5 more years at Bethel. Normally, one would expect introductory books on systematic theology, like a theological prolegomena of some kind – any kind – to be in the required curriculum. Perhaps one-volume works like Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine or Systematic Theology, Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Swindoll’s Understanding Christian Theology, Bavinck’s Our Reasonable Faith, or even something small and concise and more mainstream like Concise Theology by J.I. Packer. Or maybe the first volume of a series like Geisler’s multi-volume Systematic Theology, or works by Tillich, Hodge, Turretin, Schleiermacher, or at least someone with some historical authority and influence. Well, there was the first volume of Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s work (“A Global Introduction”), and it was nice to see Timothy Ward’s Words of Life. However, first on the list was Introducing Feminist Theology by Anne Clifford, followed by two other books that just simply would have been more appropriate for the last year of systematic theology and not the first. A Theology 101 course should involve God’s existence, God’s attributes and nature, His holiness, and the doctrine of creation, as well as a decent chunk on theological prolegomena. I was simply baffled to find virtually none of these major topics covered in the Systematics I curriculum, but instead global, cultural, pseudo-systematics books that were post-modern and usually unashamedly grounded in the changes of time and various cultures instead of the unchanging nature of the Creator. It left me wondering, if this is Systematics I, do I want to torture myself with Systematics II and III? Douglas Kelly’s own Systematics at RTS (if not Frame’s Theology of Lordship series) was clearly superior to the Bethel alternative when it came to theology.

RTS is cheaper in price, more convenient and flexible in structure, and has far higher standards of educational quality and theological soundness than Bethel Seminary.

A Word of Advice for Those Choosing Seminary Education

Lessons learned? Many. In short, don’t think too hard about seminary and over-analyze. Stick with the basics:

1. First and foremost, go where the true God and His Word are honored. There’s no amount of analysis or sufficient train of thought that can justify the intentional attendance of a seminary that doesn’t give a hoot about the Creator of the universe and His Word. It’s hard to prepare your mind and heart for ministry when the man standing in front of you and the books that are saturating your consciousness are bent on interpreting life, reality, purpose, meaning, and morality without acknowledging the Lord of creation. Challenge is good. But surrounding yourself with the right people and a genuinely Christian environment is key to education and spiritual progress.
2. Second of all, go where you know there’s good teaching. Period. RealApologetics.org doesn’t endorse any seminary, but it has been said that Greenville Presbyterian, RTS, and Westminster are kind of the “remnant” of today’s seminary education. Every institution has problems, and virtually every seminary is going to have border-line heretics. You can’t prevent that, but you can prevent going to an institution where the wackoids aren’t as heavily concentrated by choosing a better institution.
3. Go where the coursework is sufficient for your desires and your future career. Sometimes you need to bite the bullet and take courses you might not enjoy (i.e. languages). Other times, you don’t. Nothing is worse than sitting in a classroom and paying thousands of dollars for a class that you hate. Your heart must be in the class as much as your head. Of course, you can’t ensure that every class will be edifying. But, again, you can prevent having that bad experience over and over just by choosing the right place. Regarding career: if you want to teach biblical studies at a college level, you’ll need biblical studies in your MA curriculum (the same is generally true for other fields like theology, apologetics, philosophy, etc.). I can’t tell you how many friends I’ve come across who think it will be easy to pick up a job teaching Bible and hermeneutics at a college when their degree and coursework is in theology (not NT, OT,  exegetical or Biblical studies). It usually doesn’t work like that. There are distinctions within the disciplines, and if you don’t have the graduate credits (the study) in a particular field, you probably won’t end up teaching in that area unless you have other study or publications in it. In short, choose the right degree and not merely the right place to get it.

The money and location factor come in next, but that’s why I’m not doing a traditional program to begin with. Mark my words, if I didn’t have a problem with going up to my ears in debt like most of my friends, and didn’t have a (wonderful) commitment as a Pastor, I’d be studying at Westminster tomorrow. But my role as a Youth Pastor on the edge of serious economic times obviously leads me to think twice about a traditional program and leads me to distance education. Whatever the case, location, cash, and spouse-related issues are a factor, too. But only you can determine what’s wise in your situation. As for these three other principles, let them be known, and hopefully, they are helpful to you.

The other night I finally watched Surrogates (2009)  starring Bruce Willis. The story takes place several decades in the future and essentially portrays 21st century society as a giant “grid” of humanoid robots that take the place of natural human bodies. Through the advances of neuroscience, the human mind can control machines, and through more advances in neurotechnology, those machines can appear, function, and provide direct sensory experience just as a normal human body. So, why expose yourself (that is, your normal body) to the dangers of the outside world when you can plug-in at home and operate a better-looking,  more functional, and expendable surrogate to take your place? Surrogates thus give more freedom and power to human beings while taking away physical risk and personal responsibility. Life is better than ever before with the invention of the artificial you: surrogates.

There’s no need to explain the plot line of the film since this is not a movie review. The purpose of this essay is to look at the faulty bioethical presuppositions being promulgated in the film and the bankruptcy of man’s end-game in the biotechnological race.  It is necessary to look more closely at the concept of human mind-body connections through the lens of a presuppositional, Reformed, Christian worldview. Why? Because the film hardly made the “science fiction” genre (because of how close it portrays future technologies), and Christian apologists continue to overlook the growing beast of secular and naturalistic neurophilosophy walking closer and closer towards their front porch.

Science Fiction in the Making?

Fiction assumes nonfiction. Illusion assumes reality. Truth and freedom assume standards of falsity and enslavement. How far is today’s real biotechnology from the unreal technology in Surrogates? Consider the following facts, true as of 2010:

Animal Biotech

• A monkey ate a banana with a bionic arm just by thinking (2006-2009, video here)
• A monkey in Japan walked on a treadmill at Duke University in the United States with bionic legs controlled by its thoughts. (2008, video here)
• The electronic tongue and bionic tongue have been constructed and used on pigs in Germany.

Thoughts to Bionic Action and Artificial Sensory Organs

• A mute man spoke vowels from across the room (wirelessly) at Boston University CNS Speech Lab through a synthesizer, simply by thinking (2008-2009, video here and here)
• A paralyzed man uses Braingate (direct chip-to-brain interface) to use a bionic hand just by thinking (2008, video here).
• Deaf people can hear with bionic ears/cochlear implants (1972+, video here).
• Blind people can see with bionic eyes through cortical visual neuroprosthesis, retinal prosthesis,  etc., (video here and here and here).

Brain Cognition and Cyber-Space

• A student from the University of Wisconsin changed his twitter status just by thinking (2009, video here).
• A disabled man used Braingate (direct chip-to-brain interface) to play pong on his computer by thinking (2008, video here).

General Robotics

• Consumer robots like Asimo and Nao can walk up stairs on two legs and even run with air-born strides (video here ).
• Scientists in Europe forged the Perception-on-Purpose Project, which combines visual and auditory sensory input into “purposeful perception.” (2009)

Clearly, we’ve come a long way. And there’s no question that if one would expect the core technologies of the film Surrogates to come into reality, we would expect all of these things to happen here and now, which they are. But what are the implications from all of this new technology? What has neuroscience taught us about the human body, person, and experience?

A Few Preliminary Remarks Regarding Neuroscience and the Christian Worldview

1. It all happens in the brain. Pain, pleasure, taste and touch, hearing and seeing all take place in the brain. The feel of buttons underneath your finger tips occurs in the brain, just as the pain of dropping a hammer on your foot, or music, or sex, or even prayer and its effects happen between a person’s ears. In that sense, conscious experience occurs in the brain, however, it is by no means limited to the brain (see number 3). Whatever the case, something substantial, something significant occurs in the human brain that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
2. The brain is the most complex physical structure in the universe; it is the master handiwork of God, and as such, the structure of the brain reflects the nature of God in its amazing unity and diversity. Because of this, it is in many ways comprehensible and possible to interpret, and in others incomprehensible and impossible to interpret. We can hook up fake arms, ears, eyes, and other body parts to a person’s brain, and he can control them to some degree. But, no artificial organ or limb has yet exceeded the capabilities of the original – first because of our limited understanding of the brain, second because of our limited engineering technology. We know only to some degree how to interpret brain waves and groups of neurological pulses. Why? Because the brain, in its activity and function, is both possible and impossible to interpret. It’s just too stinking complex; we’re just beginning to begin to understand it. Think of it as noticing some patterns of a text in a foreign language and drawing some general conclusions about this and that, but never really being able to translate it accurately into fully-orbed sentences and assertions. Scientists have yet to exhaust the diverse patterns of the brain, both its patterns of unity as much as patterns of plurality.
3. If unified perception is in some way “consciousness,” then conscious experience can be thought of as spatially and physically relative at least to the extent that it does not depend upon the physical location of one’s body. I remember playing video games at a LAN party back in high school, and hearing the language between players in a first-person shooter, “Man, I totally got you!” and “come over here!” Of course, the “I” and “you” were not the actual you, but the characters in the game (the digital “surrogate” if you will). Operators, even of only the simple visual and auditory experience of a video game, in a strange way really do “get in the game.”  In other words, the point of the film The Matrix is legitimate: with all senses being directed into a unified conscious experience from extra-bodily sources of input (i.e. a software program, a surrogate in another location, etc.), there’s no reason to think the focus of one’s mind, the conscious experience of the soul (or “the self,” “person,” etc.), is bound by the physical location of one’s actual body. “You” are where your “conscious experience” is, at least if one considers a person’s mind/content of thoughts as being distinct from one’s body (and there is often biblical warrant for doing so, as we’ll see). Through the neurological work of Ramachandran and others, we already know that a person can be deceived into thinking he has/doesn’t have limbs that he doesn’t/does have – and in fact, can actually experience (feel) the activity of limbs that don’t even exist as a part of their body (that is, actual and not pretended sensory experience). However, Ramachandran draws radical conclusions from these neuroscientific studies such as, “the self that almost by definition is entirely private is to a significant extent a social construct – a story you make up for others,” (Phantoms 254), and most disturbingly, “Science…is telling us that we have no privileged position in the universe and that our sense of having a private nonmaterial soul ‘watching the world’ is really an illusion…you are in fact part of the eternal ebb and flow of events in the cosmos,” (256). From a Christian perspective, these conclusions cannot be accepted (see I Cor. 15:42-51, cf. Gen. 1-2). But Ramachandran’s more general conclusions can (and must, according to a consistent apologetic) be accepted. Numerous texts in Scripture, especially Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation, recount the “out of body” experiences of the prophets. For example, John remained in the prison at Patmos island while John was being lifted up to the spectacular sights of the throne-room of God; his conscious experience (like anyone’s experience) did not depend upon the physical location of his body (see all references to “was in the Spirit” in Revelation, and “the Spirit entered me” and “the Spirit lifted me up” in Ezekiel). Also, notice how Ezekiel experienced sounds, sights, and even tastes in Ez. 1-3 while the whole time his body was in the same location (Ez. 1:1; 3:15). (Keep in mind, this is not the same assertion as the phrases “I am with you in spirit” or “to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord,” etc. in the New Testament.)

The False Presuppositions Beneath Surrogates and Non-Christian Neurological Endeavors

As you should know, Isaac Asimov is the author of both Surrogates and iRobot with Will Smith. If you recall, Dr. Spooner (Smith) had a bionic arm transplant in the film. And there were several scenes in the movie that demonstrated the superiority (strength, endurance, etc.) of the bionic arm over his other, natural arm. The basic assertion is that with the advances of science and technology, human beings have created a better design than the original. In fact, given enough time, human beings can supersede themselves, build a better version of their species due to the abundant wisdom flowing out of the scientific community (this is asserted elsewhere in literature and movies).

But, as many Christian scholars have pointed out (Christopher Hook, etc.), this mentality builds off of a Darwinian worldview. Why should evolution stop with human beings? Why not speed up the process of evolution by creating super-humans, something far better than the Christian “God” ever would have imagined?

The Christian presupposition, on the other hand, is that in their sinless state, organisms like the human body are designed perfectly to carry out their specific purpose. There were no faults in DNA, no physiology deformities, etc. The design was perfect and as such cannot be improved upon. Why? Because the One who created it is alone perfect.

Outside that presupposition, however, you’ll hear quite the opposite. Not only can human beings out-do their already superior status in the animal kingdom, but they can re-engineer far better than any alleged Creator. We’re told that it would have been better to swap the location of the throat and the wind-pipe so people wouldn’t choke so easily, that most of the biological information in DNA is “junk” (so much for that, see here and here), etc. The faulty presupposition infecting this worldview, of course, is that perfection can be measured outside of God’s existence, and that man is the measure of all things.

This presupposition infiltrates Surrogates and most science-fiction movies of this kind. Far beyond the concept of restoration, the human body can be enhanced and changed and improved upon in so many ways (most likely due to the process of evolution, although that is not always directly alluded to) that the films almost leave us with an emotional longing for the future, to the wonderful days of the surrogates where one can experience and indulge in all the passions of the flesh with minimal consequences.

Christian Bioethics

But the fact of the matter is that not only is trying to “enhance” and re-engineer God’s perfect design bioethically wrong, but it is wholly impossible. God’s gift of life and the human experience in its sinless, unaltered state could and can never be enhanced, improved, or changed by the creature to produce a wholly better result. That is the Christian teaching. That is the biblical presupposition regarding bioethics and biotechnology. Therefore, it is delusional to think that man can create or reconstruct any part of the body (or whole body), beyond fixing the problems of the original design, in a wholly better fashion than originally created by God.

The materialistic, naturalistic scientific community simply does not believe this. They talk about how much more sturdy and strong a robotic arm is than the human arm, but for some reason never mention how noisy it is (not silent like the natural design), and how it is subject to corrosion (not water-proof like the original design), and incredibly inefficient (not efficient like the God’s design). Dozens of other examples could be given. At creation, God established a purpose for his images and the best possible biological means of fulfilling that purpose. Therefore, today’s attempts of enhancement (not restoration) to God’s creatures is, on the whole, impossible. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, because A) the biotech community probably isn’t operating on a Christian worldview, and is therefore denying the wisdom of the Creator of all things, and B) you’re probably just seeing an improvement upon the corrupted design that exists today, not on the perfect design that existed in the beginning. Indeed, it is one thing to assert the improvement of a corrupted design, and quite another to assert an improvement of an original, perfect design. Man’s goal today in biotechnology must be oriented around the former, and not the latter.

Godless biotechnology finds itself, then, in quite a conundrum: for what determines the direction of enhancement? If biology does not reflect a divine purpose, the creature inevitably fills the gap with an inferior and ever-changing purpose. Shall we make the hand stronger, or more efficient? Shall we re-engineer our children to have blue eyes and slender thighs, blonde hair and muscular arms, or something opposite? Who’s to say that building a stronger arm with problems in energy efficiency and heavy weight is more valuable on the whole than an arm that is weak, but more efficient and easier to move? Is it really “better” to have “enhanced” 12 inch genitals that create countless health problems which decrease the overall quality of the life, or to have equally functional genitals with no health problems? Indeed, the Christian presupposition regarding biotech and bioethics is not only true in principle, but in reality; steroids injections, male-enhancements, female birth and period control, the endless list of quick-fixes addressing single aspects of the human experience are plagued with negative side-effects that lead to a wholly poorer quality of life, not a greater one.

The creature who does not acknowledge his/her Creator can go in any direction, and as the Scriptures and Reformers asserted, every direction of the unbeliever is inevitably the wrong direction. The human experience will be poorer, not better. And when a group of published elites begin to objectivize and absolutize their subjective and non-absolute conclusions as to how the human body “should be,”  you can bet the quality of life and experience of human beings will quickly diminish in a society.

…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Rom 1)

In short, the creature’s attempt to restore the original creation of God (insofar is possible in a sinful world) is the proper end of biotechnology. That’s why Jesus healed and restored people instead of giving them the ability to fly or walk through walls. As Donahue from Braingate said, “In 50 years – it’s very hard to tell – but I think we’ll have people with much better control, that they would be able to carry out a range of normal functions.” This is an innocent mission until we realize that the creature who does not acknowledge the Creator will re-define what “normal” is. But it is our contention as Christian bioethicists and apologists that normality must be defined by the Creator and not the creature. Repeat with me: Normality must be defined by the Creator and not the creature.

Double-Doomed

If it is impossible to improve upon God’s design through biotechnology, why not simply clone God’s design and alter it to fit our purposes?

The morning after I saw Surrogates, I indulged in a little foolishness. I put my mind into the position of the evolutionist, secular biotechnician and thought “how would I re-engineer humanity?” I began thinking about the surrogates, and how they were essentially bio-mechanical machines that imitated everything about the regular human body.

But then it struck me. If we can’t surpass “nature’s design” (speaking in evolutionary and not Christian theistic terms), why not clone it? Why not skip the process of waiting 50 or a 100 years until we have the technology to build an inferior surrogate, and just create a test-tube clone of a DNA “perfect” human body with all the bells and whistles, remove its cortex so it doesn’t actually become a human being (without consciousness/soul/mind/self, etc.), and then insert a fake computer cortex that wirelessly corresponds to the surrogate operator-station? That way, you will have essentially transferred your mind/consciousness to not just a mechanical body, but a real, living, breathing human body that was edited to make room for your commands.

The benefit? You’ve given yourself an additional life. Just like a surrogate, if you get crushed by a truck, your consciousness simply returns to your actual body that lies safely at home.  You have all the benefits of a real human body, but without the expense or risk.

Or do you? You don’t have just one body to feed anymore…you have two. You don’t have one body that needs sleep, proper nutrition, and needs to go the bathroom several times a day, you have two. Your human surrogate is just as susceptible to diseases and STDs as your own body.

What have you actually gained by the human-body surrogate?

Nothing. Human consciousness, the self, the mind, can only occupy one body at a time. There is only one unified experience that works on the basis of one set of sensory organs. That’s because there’s only one you. And if one body is virtually dead in your house lying in a surrogate operating-station that could just as well be up and walking and doing everything you intend to do in life, why burden yourself with the high-maintenance, equal-risk, and expensive liability of a surrogate? Surrogates don’t look so promising after all.

Of course, now we get into the question of whether the human mind/consciousness can be permanently transferred from one body to another. If consciousness is spatially relative (not bound by the location of a body), can it be so always and absolutely? As far as we know, both in science and Scripture, no. The scientific community can’t place their bets on the legitimacy of that claim given that it so closely resembles the teaching of Eastern religions (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). More importantly, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that suggests a person/soul/mind can permanently leave one body and reside in another under any circumstance.

Conclusion

Therefore, no matter what end humans pursue in the biotechnological race to improve human experience through re-engineering and technology, it will have only succeeded – if it has succeeded at all – to improve life by getting closer to God’s original design. Every other direction will turn up empty. Again, God’s gift of life and the human experience in its sinless, unaltered state could and can never be enhanced, improved, or changed by the creature to produce a wholly better result. And again, normality must be defined by the Creator and not the creature.

“Two kinds of human consciousness: that of the regenerate and the unregenerate; and these two cannot be identical.” – Abraham Kuyper

As you can tell, these arguments are impossible to address on any religiously neutral ground. If the primary reason we can say “no” to Congress biotech bill x and y is according to divine purpose, what hope of restoring creation remains if we, even for a moment, abandon those commitments to the Creator? I fear that nothing will stop our society from pursuing the empty ends of secular biotech unless those in positions of power realize that God is God and we are not. Let us pray for this realization to happen and that God will give common grace to people who are God-conscious but not yet willing to admit it.

This ministry isn’t even yet a year old, and I still feel like this essay is overdue – for both itself and the rest of Christian apologetics.

God hates pride. He hates it with a passion. Over and over and over again in the Torah and throughout all the Old covenants, God continually says things like “I will break down your pride” (Lev. 26:19), while his prophets declare “You rebuke the arrogant” (Psalm 199:21). The first of 7 “abominations” that “the Lord hates” in Proverbs 6:16 is “haughty eyes,” (עֵינַיִם רָמוֹת) which means a person who is “blatantly proud” and “self-willed,” and in fact “signaling triumph” and even “independent of a source.”

Of course, the center and foundation for all godliness is being God-centered. But pride presupposes that man himself is not even dependent upon His Creator, for it overlooks God altogether. Pride is all about me me me, while humility is all about God, and God when we don’t feel like it, and God when we don’t see hope, and God when we feel pain, and God when our loved one dies, and God when our apologetic argument fails, and God for eternity. Yes, pride is perhaps the ugliest of all sins and leads only to death, and more than one Christian apologist has indulged in its madness, myself included (we preach best what we need to learn the most).

The job of the Christian apologist is to defend, clarify, and articulate the Christian faith. Doing so involves making distinctions and separations. Therefore, apologetics often requires the direct refutation of false beliefs. Needless to say, this discipline is possible without being prideful, but it is by no means easy. How does one correct another without being condescending? How can one refute false teachings without assuming a position of elevated status? Bavinck even said that “the apologists do not start from a base of doubt or neutrality but from a position of firm belief and unshakable conviction. They face the enemy, not in dread and fear, but with a strong sense of spiritual superiority.” How does one embrace this true superiority and be confident in the assurance of faith and not appear arrogant at the same time? In short, how does the Christian apologist deal with pride and avoid its temptation when it seems so easy to do?

I want to offer three responses to this issue: the Scriptural teaching, examples in church history, and practical instruction.

The Biblical Conditions of the Apologetic Task

God knew apologetics was necessary, and He likewise knew the apologist is constantly tempted to fall into the sin of pride. Is it any surprise then, that in I Peter 3:15-16, we read:

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;  and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. (emphasis mine)

First of all, the Scriptures assert the necessity of being ready to give a defense – but it does so with specificity: “Yet with gentleness and reverence.” The word ἀλλὰ can mean either “but,” “yet,” or “except.” In other words, “slow down sir, before you get gung-ho about the defense of the faith, you have to make sure you do it in a certain way.” The first assertion about apologetics is, without a doubt, given direct conditions. Indeed, Christian apologists are never to be harsh and arrogant, but instead gentle and revering.

The third condition for the Christian apologist is in verse 16: “and keep a good conscience.” Did you just write a blog article that you weren’t sure you should post? Did you write a relative a letter feeling uneasy about the tone you wrote it in and aren’t sure whether to send it? Are you thinking about saying something at that next church meeting but aren’t sure if it would be wise?

Don’t do it. Luther wisely stated, “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” The Christian apologist should always, always keep a good conscience, which essentially means “moral sensitivity,” (see also the word in I Cor. 8:7). If there is any question about your apologetic in terms of whether it would violate your conscience or not, or if it is truly gentle and respectful, talk to brothers and sisters in Christ (preferably elders/pastor) to see if your conscience is correct. If two or more who are fit to give counsel say “it’s OK,” then you’re probably over-reacting. If they say “that’s a bit harsh, arrogant, or inappropriate,” you either change it or don’t do it at all. As Chuck Swindoll once preached, “If one man calls you an ass, pay him no mind. If two men call you an ass, buy a saddle.” Whatever the case, doing apologetics as God requires in Scripture simply leaves no place for pride.

Examples in the Faith

Greg Bahnsen and Greg Koukl are the only two formal apologists I’ve ever listened to and read that have never come across as being arrogant. Their tongue is almost perfectly controlled. They craft their words so carefully that they know exactly what its effect will be on both the present listener and the third-person listener of the future. They deliver knowledge to others appropriately and concisely. They refuse to escalate in response to someone else’s temper, they provide sound knowledge without making compromises in the process, and they minister with the keen awareness and sincerity of a pastor’s heart. And yet, they are some of the greats in terms of knowledge and wisdom, especially Bahnsen.

Douglas Wilson said of Bahnsen, ” The ancient Romans would have said to him, Rem acu tetigisti. He could ‘touch the thing with a needle.’” While it has been some 15 years since Bahnsen walked, talked, and ministered to the flock on this earth, he remains one of the greatest examples of how to do apologetics rightly – with gentleness, reverence, and remaining in good conscience. While Bahnsen could have spent all his time bragging about how he completed his philosophy doctoral exams in less than two weeks with the highest scores possible in all of them, how he completed his Th.M and M.Div simultaneously from Westminster, how he completely shut down Gordon Stein’s atheism in the famous debate of 1985, Bahnsen simply refused to stoop to that level. Why? Because he knew apologetics is a biblical discipline before God, not a competition of wits in front of men. Again, if apologetics is to be genuine, there is no place for pride.

Practical Instruction

If that is true – that apologetics is a discipline before God and not before men – RealApologetics.org has failed miserably. In comparison with most other apologetics, it has fared rather well (of course, even that is disputable). But in front of a Holy God (which really matters), RealApologetics.org has been anything but blameless. I’ve failed as a blogger, as a commentator, but more importantly, as a representation of Christ.

And yet, that is what makes RealApologetics.org what it is and makes a Christian apologist a good one – not its failure, but its accountability to higher standards. In failing those standards, there is still no excuse. And when rebuke is due, rebuke is due. But, by God’s grace, this ministry – as will other brother and sisters in the Lord “fighting the good fight of faith” – will continue to grow, learn, and seek to present a heart of wisdom before the Lord. There is no hope for a fool whose heart is made of stone, but there is always hope for a heart of flesh.

Therefore, despite the fact that RealApologetics.org has failed the following instruction, I want to offer a few things to prevent falling into pride when doing apologetics:

1. You can’t do apologetics alone. Defending the faith was never designed to be an isolated activity. It is the joining of God’s people and the fellowship of the church that makes a person as sharp as he or she is, because the Spirit works in people. Books can be a shortcut to knowledge, but rarely a shortcut to wisdom. It is a most fearful and necessary thing to be rebuked, corrected, and taught at the feet of one older and wiser than yourself. Apologetics must take place in step with the church, not despite it or along side it.

2. Ask yourself one question before making any major assertion in apologetics: “Is this ‘blameless’?” Is this article blameless before men (I Cor. 9:22) and before God? Will someone listening to this verbal argument think “he’s wise and being humble”? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have no choice but to either back down, or pause and make changes. Think before speaking. Assess before typing. Learn and seek third-party instruction before publicly rebuking. Paul said, “I have become all things for all men, so that I may by all means save some,” and “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men,” (Luke 2:52). Jesus learned more and more and more without becoming arrogant and losing friends and without dishonoring God. Granted, there will be times when seeking human approval doesn’t work. Cultural accommodation must often get thrown out the window for the sake of the truth; if every apologist was concerned about political correctness and not offending anyone, apologetics would essentially end. However, there is still something to be said about being blameless. When I listen to Bahnsen, Koukl, and James R. White debate in the public square, not once have I ever thought of them as being arrogant. Let it be a standard, and always ask: is this action blameless?

3. Be precise and concise, but never overstate your argument. The power of understatement opened my eyes in a chapter by that name in The Little Red Book of Wisdom. When a person reads your argument, he should understand it and be convinced. That’s the short-term goal of apologetic argumentation. However, you’ve screwed up as soon as that person understands it, is persuaded of it, and finds it annoying and arrogant because you’ve beat it to death and gone too far. For example, it is appropriate to argue “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God,” and that atheism is irrational, but it is an overstatement to then say “atheists are idiots and stupid people.”  When a point has been made and received, the point should rest at ease and not accelerate into extremity. Apologists like myself take great pleasure in seeing people be persuaded of the utter and mind-blowing coherence of God, Christianity, and the truth of the Scriptures. But that passion can be a vice. Because when the pleasure of seeing a light bulb go on in someone’s head begins to motivate our hearts, we can get addicted to the pleasure of successful persuasion and want more – which leads to overstated arguments. A wood post must be carefully pressed several feet into the ground to hold a fence, yes, but it doesn’t have to be pounded carelessly and completely into the ground in order to function. In that case, you’ve destroyed the post and defeated your purpose.

Other Wisdom, From Scripture

Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. – James 1:19

The fear of the Lord teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. – Proverbs 15:33

Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. – Proverbs 26:12

Two hours ago, I was, for the first time, pacing the floors of “Crossroads Books and Music” located near the largest mall in South Dakota. The Crossroads website describes itself in the following terms:

“For over 30 years, Crossroads Books & Music has provided the finest in Christian products to the Sioux Empire. Our 18,000 sq ft facility allows us to carry the best in Christian books, Bibles, music and gifts.”

In short, visiting Crossroads was an unpleasant experience as a Christian and life-time resident of South Dakota. And it is my contention that if this descriptive claim of Crossroads is true, it is highly indicative of the horrendously poor condition of mainstream evangelical Christianity. If this description is false, it constitutes a misrepresentation of what true Christianity is and what fine Christian resources really are.

First-Impressions

The first thing I learned about Crossroads is that I had been misinformed: it was not primarily a bookstore, but a consumer-oriented place to buy generically “Christian” themed products, including everything from napkins to golf-balls. The symmetrical building was split into two sections, one with the crafts and art, and another with the books, DVDs (with rentals), and t-shirts. Since the store description claims “to carry the best in Christian books, Bibles,” and since I’m an author myself, I naturally gravitated away from the pot-metal trinkets and towards the bookshelves.

Here’s what I saw. Like most stores, all of the bookcases were the same size, and the topical proportions according bookcases alone left me speechless. There were two bookcases on “Theology” and twelve on “Fiction.” There were three bookcases on “Women” and a half of a book case on “World Religions,” which (unfortunately) summed up the entire field of apologetics, philosophy, and polemics for the whole store. As I continued strolling in and out of the isles, I also noticed that virtually every book on the shelves was “on display,” facing the isle instead of being stacked sideways. At the very least, this was an incredibly insufficient use of space. It was more likely, however, that this unnecessary spread indicated both a lack of selection and a lack of buyer-demand. Either the store had over-expanded their floor space, or no one came to Crossroads to buy their books so that their supply was minimal. Whatever the case, I certainly wasn’t walking in Barnes and Noble (which was only a few blocks away).

No God Here…

If the theology section of Crossroads is the “finest” in the Sioux Empire, God help us. There were about a half-dozen books on Jesus, but almost none on Jesus’ work (Christology, atonement, etc.). There were no systematic theologies anywhere in the store (unless one considers the Westminster Shorter Catechism or Luther’s Catechism to be in that category). Although there were several “quick references” and perhaps a generic religious encyclopedia, there were no books on historical theology or church history. There were no books on Reformed theology, no books on theological method (how to do theology), and no books on bibliology (doctrine of Scripture, inspiration, etc.). There were no books on creation, no books on the nature and attributes of God (knowledge, aseity, Trinity, etc.), no books on biblical epistemology (nature of knowledge), no books on sin and repentance, and no books on the essential message and nature of the gospel. Crossroads did, however, have Reinventing Jesus and Bock’s Jesus According to Scripture. Phew, I thought, I guess they have “something”! Of course, these books didn’t belong to the “Theology” section anyway, but to “Apologetics” or “Historical Studies,” instead.

I sighed, started to walk, and hoped things would get better. They didn’t. The “Biblical Studies” section was even more depressing than the last. There were dozens and dozens of anecdotal booklets and DVDs. But there was not one single, full-sized, full-length book on the shelves! I did not find one resource of any form on exegesis, exegetical studies, background contextual studies on Judaism or Greco-Roman culture, hermeneutics, interpretation, and the like. If Crossroads was any indication of mainstream evangelical Christianity, it became evident that “Biblical Studies” books about both the New and the Old Testament have been effectively replaced by DVD “Bible studies” of various topics. People apparently want milk and not meat.

…No Thinking There…

The apologetics section of Crossroads consisted of one bookcase entitled “World Religions” with two empty bottom shelves. There were less than ten full-length volumes in this section. There were no books specifically written on the major world religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Mormonism. There were no books on the history of apologetics, books on apologetic methodology, books on the biblical nature of apologetics, or books on integrating the defense of the faith into the life of the Christian. There were no books on heresies that existed during any point in church history, no books on confessions or creeds, and no books on textual criticism. There were no books on Eastern orthodoxy, no books on Roman Catholicism, no books on the Reformation, no books on Eastern mysticism and cults, and no books on any field of philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, contemporary philosophy, historic philosophy, or classic philosophy from any author written at any time written about any world religion – either in the form of primary or secondary source work. There were also no books on the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of Scripture, nor were there any books on the historical reliability of the New or Old Testament. There were no books on Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design, or the debates in science and religion. In brief, there were no books from any of the leading Christian apologists that have ever existed in human history, not Tertullian, Ireneaus, Athanasius, Calvin, Turretin, Warfield, Van Til, Schaeffer, Bahnsen, or White. And, again, this wasn’t true for just this section, but for the entire store. People apparently don’t want to think about the gospel, and they sure is heck don’t want to defend the gospel.

Crossroads was seriously starting to look like a joke. Perhaps they put all their attention towards Bibles. This was, after all, a “Christian” store.

So, I walked over to the Bible section. There were six Lutheran Study Bibles, but only one ESV Study Bible. Furthermore, there was only one standard, non-edited, NASB Bible. There were no Bibles in the original languages, either Greek or Hebrew; there were no interlinears, no parallels, and no diglots. There were no Vulgates, no Septuagints, and no Majority or Masoretic texts. There were no Peshittas, no Textus Receptus’, and, by all means, no Nestle-Aland 27^th Editions or Hebraica Stuttgartensias. This is the finest the Sioux Empire has to offer? I said to myself. I hope the “Sioux Empire” doesn’t extend beyond the parking lot of this building!

O’ Gospel, Where Art Thou?

I made a quick swing around the store to see what resources were exclusively and repetitiously featured on the ends of the bookcases. This usually provides a person with some indication of where a bookstore’s priorities really are. Let’s not forget, some individual or group of individuals associated with Crossroads specifically decided to present certain books in front of the eyes of wondering shoppers.

I found numerous, flashy copies of It’s Your Time by Joel Osteen, “God Sightings” gear (complete with Bible, manuals, and multi-media), High Performance Health, Overweight Kids, Cooking for Life, Captivating, and among others, Hermie and Friends. Oh, there was also some music CDs.

Unless all of these resources were simply placed there by mistake, Crossroads is evidently most concerned about a self-help, self-success, physical-solution, pseudo-feminine, children’s-entertainment-gospel-less, Christless, sinless, Godless, repentanceless, man-centered, demandless religion that has absolutely nothing to do with the person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ and the world’s Creator. I suppose this explains – among other things – why the best-seller Christless Christianity was nowhere to be found.

Conclusion: Will the Real Christianity Please Stand Up?

Perhaps my evaluation is all wrong. Maybe none of this means anything. Maybe the entire stock of the store and the laundry list of man-centered and gospel-absent items don’t indicate anything about Christians’ understanding of “finest resources” or about what Christians are really looking for. Maybe Christians are finding Crossroads useful. Maybe Christians are even finding Crossroads sufficient.

But, we need help if that’s the case. And may God help the unbeliever who walks into Crossroads thinking that this is what real Christianity is all about.

If there is any place for the “finest” and “best” “Christian” resources in the largest city of South Dakota, Barnes and Noble wins hands down. It has virtually everything Crossroads lacks, which is virtually everything related to the Christian God and the Christian gospel.

Do what mainstream evangelicalism doesn’t want you to do: buy an ESV Study Bible and read it every day without thinking about how wonderful you are (i.e. Joel Osteen). Buy a volume on history like Shelly’s Church History in Plain Language and stop thinking that your vision for church is original )i.e. emergent church). Buy a systematic theology like Grudem’s Bible Doctrine and finish it in a year without giving up and settling for anecdotal booklets. In short, be a thoughtful Christian.