Friday, January 20, 2012

Making Christian War and Peace At the Same Time



"Good apologetics involves 'speaking the truth in love' (Eph 4:15)." ~ William Lane Craig

I began my previous post by quoting Dr. Craig to the effect that Christians should "prepare for war" against non-believers by steeping themselves and their children in sound arguments for their faith and against criticisms thereof. And I think I have to agree that if one is going to be Christian, one should know a fair amount about essential Christian teachings and be able to defend them effectively and not merely count on simple emotion and devotion to carry one through the temptations and trials of life. After all, Christians in general and Dr. Craig in particular believe that the posthumous fate of one's immortal soul depends on whether one loves and obeys God in this life, and surely most of us need all the intellectual as well as emotional and social support we can to fulfill this lofty requirement.

Furthermore, it makes perfect sense for Christians who want their children to go to heaven rather than hell to give them all the intellectual as well as other kinds of support they can to keep them strong in their faith and obedience to God. Thus, as Dr. Craig says, it would be grossly irresponsible for a Christian who believes this way not to render that support.

Yet, I wonder if and where parents should draw the line between sound and suitable teaching that enhances a child's religious knowledge but preserves and promotes her autonomy on the one hand and forceful indoctrination that interferes with a child's ability to make up his own mind about religion on the other. I'm concerned that parents who vigorously ground their children, especially their minor children, in apologetics may be crossing the line from acceptable teaching into unacceptable indoctrination.

I also wonder about how to reconcile Craig's talk of Christians going to apologetical "war" with non-believing individuals and with a culture increasingly hostile to believers and his following statement: "We should be gentle and respectful. Apologetics is also not the art of making somebody else sorry that you're a  Christian! We can present a defense of the Christian faith without becoming defensive. We can present arguments for the Christian faith without becoming argumentative."

When I think of war, I decidedly don't think of people respectfully reasoning together, and I suspect that many people who try to wage war against non-belief with respectful argument fail miserably at the latter, despite Dr. Craig's observation that "the better my arguments, the less argumentative I am. The better my defense, the less defensive I am. If you have good reasons for what you believe and know the answers to the unbeliever's questions or objections, there's just no reason to get hot under the collar. Instead, you'll find yourself calm and confident when you're under attack, because you know you have the answers."

Yet, I have to say that I have great respect for Christians who engage non-believers such as myself with respectful, calm, and reasoned argument, and I surmise that if more Christians were able to do this, it would place their faith in a much more appealing light and undoubtedly lead more non-believers to embrace it.

In my next blogpost, I want to briefly address Dr. Craig's reasons for why apologetics is important.


16 comments:

  1. ""Yet, I wonder if and where parents should draw the line between sound and suitable teaching that enhances a child's religious knowledge but preserves and promotes her autonomy on the one hand and forceful indoctrination that interferes with a child's ability to make up his own mind about religion on the other. I'm concerned that parents who vigorously ground their children, especially their minor children, in apologetics may be crossing the line from acceptable teaching into unacceptable indoctrination."" i believe that you make a good point here Steve ..what you need to distinguish is acceptable teaching and unacceptable indoctrination. when you said "vigorously ground their children" is it safe to say not to "vigorously" rather teach them in a way to understand....its like school for example if i "vigorously" tell my child that sports is good and he or she MUST be good at it. i am doing harm. rather i tell my child that doing sports in school is healthy. and to do it at there pace........they necessarily dont have to be good in sports the underling message is there health......i hope you can see the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "When I think of war, I decidedly don't think of people respectfully reasoning together"' here i think your meaning of war is blurred...for example when nations have peace talks they are at war trying to find common ground...."'that many people who try to wage war against non-belief with respectful argument fail miserably at the latter"" can you give an example of a theist with good arguments who has failed ? can you distinguish from what are good theistic arguments?...i hpoe i interpreted you correctly if not let me know..:-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "'And I think I have to agree that if one is going to be Christian, one should know a fair amount about essential Christian teachings and be able to defend them effectively and not merely count on simple emotion and devotion to carry one through the temptations and trials of life."" here i disagree i dont think one needs a degree in biblical studies to defend there belief or be saved. i dont think having a degree gets you into heaven. if one does not have an articulated response to a better educated Atheist..to me that in no way makes the one less educated wrong. and the more educated one right....i think you would agree with me that its not what one knows but how one acts toward others and treats others is what matters more. i believe theres a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "And I think I have to agree that if one is going to be Christian, one should know a fair amount about essential Christian teachings and be able to defend them effectively and not merely count on simple emotion and devotion to carry one through the temptations and trials of life. "

    I couldn't agree more...

    "Yet, I wonder if and where parents should draw the line between sound and suitable teaching that enhances a child's religious knowledge but preserves and promotes her autonomy on the one hand and forceful indoctrination that interferes with a child's ability to make up his own mind about religion on the other."

    I think a delicate balance needs to be established...Parents should be able to present their views to their children, the reason why they hold them...and apologetics can definitely help parents articulate that in a meaningful exchange. But if their children have questions or doubts they should be explored in a compassionate way..never being ridiculed for having them. There needs to be an open and honest dialogue between parents and children..one with a definite tone of the parent being non-judgemental towards the child. I think a lot of children are afraid to express their doubts to their parents and that some parent's technique of stiff indoctrination of their children will eventually backfire on them because instead of their children really being open to them and seeking to find answers together with their parent's guidance, they will seek out their answers on their own..and perhaps find them outside the sphere of Christianity. I think indoctrination, the kind that is unwavering and rigid, leaving no room for free thought on the part of the child..is cruel...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Matthew. I'd like to respond briefly to some of them.

    First, I like your comparison between encouraging one's child to participate in sports and grounding him or her in age-appropriate apologetics. It's possible to take either to excessive extremes, and, conversely, I suppose that it's possible to engage in both in a manner that is good or at least not bad for the child.

    Second, your notion of war as seeking peace from conflict by "trying to find common ground" is an interesting one. However, it seems to me that seeking peace through reasoned discussion is not any kind of "war" and that calling it war, as Dr. Craig seems to, is likely to invoke a warlike attitude in "defenders of the faith" that is ultimately counterproductive to his or her purposes. What's more, I'm not sure what kind of "common ground" the religious apologist is seeking to establish with a non-believer (and vice versa). It seems to me that, so far as the apologist is concerned, there is no compromise when it comes to Christianity. That is, Christianity is seen as being the one, true faith, and the objective is to persuade the non-believer to embrace it whole hog.

    Third, when I wrote of theists failing "miserably" to engage non-believers with respectful argument, I was referring not to the philosophical or theological quality or lack thereof of their arguments but to their disrespectfulness toward the non-believer, a disrespectfulness generated by a warlike mentality. In other words, when people go to war for their country or their religious beliefs, they tend not to do it with a whole lot of calmness toward and respect for the other side.

    Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Matthew, that one doesn't need a degree in biblical (or theological) studies to be a good Christian, and that a good Christian is one who doesn't just talk the talk but also walks the walk. In saying this, I'm reminded of Paul's admonition against being a "clanging cymbal" who speaks eruditely but without love in his heart. Ironically, I think that the impression some Christians and non-Christians alike rightly or wrongly have of Dr. Craig is that he is more of a philosophy- spouting clanging cymbal than a man who radiates Christian love. However, I agree with Dr. Craig that Christianity is not only about how you live but what you believe and that knowing what you believe and feeling convinced that you have sound, rational reasons for believing it is not only likely to strengthen your belief but also make you a much more effective witness for Christianity. In other words, Matthew, I think that living a good Christian life and having a decent grounding in Christian teachings and apologetics go hand-in-hand and that those who are intellectually capable of the latter, which all are admittedly not, have a Christian responsibility to fulfill that capability.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jessica, I agree completely with your comment and will no doubt be exploring this whole issue of wholesome teaching vs "stiff indoctrination" in further detail as this blog progresses.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "'the sphere of Christianity. I think indoctrination, the kind that is unwavering and rigid, leaving no room for free thought on the part of the child..is cruel..."' i believe we all can agree to that. that does not means every Christian does that. i believe the question then becomes how much "free thought" should we give to a child..? we are to instill values and teach them right from wrong ..that does not mean give them complete control in there decision making..??

    ReplyDelete
  8. "How much free thought should we give to a child?" That is a very challenging question, Matthew, and one to which I expect to return repeatedly over the course of this blog. My preliminary impression, as a non-theist who is very skeptical of fundamental religious teachings of every stripe, is that we should afford impressionable young children as much religious freedom as humanly possible. But religious people will certainly disagree with me on this, and I'm not sure if and how our differences of opinion on this matter can be resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Steve,

    I think your post here may begin with a misunderstanding. With the concept of war (depending on the era), images readily come to mind of sword against sword, musket against musket, or machine gun against machine gun. War pits people against people.

    War itself, however, is conflict. In these physical cases, the objects of war are people in conflict. However, what most likely sparks such physical aggression are conflicting ideas. In the context of apologetics, the objects of war (metaphorically speaking) are ideas in conflict.

    Although the Christian apologist may give an argument in favor of a Christian idea, I believe the defensive nature of apologetics (in contrast to polemics) defines the purpose. Here, the war is one of defending against ideas intended to conquer the Christian faith. In this light, “preparing for war” entails preparing to defend against the attack (whether directly or indirectly) of opposing arguments.

    As Christians, the means through which we are to communicate a defense of Christian ideas involves the mandate to treat the opponent, the person, with gentleness and respect. This admonition to the apologist is a reminder that the object of war is the conflicting idea, not the individual who believes it. So, I think it may be (or lead to) a misunderstanding to say, “Christians should ‘prepare for war’ against non-believers.”

    "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"
    2 Corinthians 10:5

    As for “indoctrination,” I think it’s fairly reasonable to assume that parents (whether theists or non-theists) teach and raise their children according to what they (the parents) believe is true. To suggest that some parents should not teach their children a given idea is to assume the idea is false or faulty, which opens the door to begging the question. In a practical sense, every non-theistic parent (if he or she is consistent) “indoctrinates” his or her child with beliefs consistent with their own (even if it’s the doctrine, “Let them decide for themselves”).

    Lastly, there is a distinction between two essential purposes for a Christian to be knowledgeable about his or her faith. One is as a means of dealing with societal settings that may promote non-Christian ideas or ideals. Another is because it is, in some way, connected to the “fate of one’s immortal soul.” I imagine most theological traditions would agree with the former but not necessarily with the latter.

    e

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric, I appreciate your comments, and I agree with you that an apologist could conceive his "war" against non-belief in the lofty manner you describe. However, I suspect that most won't. That is, I suspect that calling one's defense of the faith "war" tends to consciously or subconsciously program one to defend it with a hostile state-of-mind and demeanor that is unlikely to win converts or foster Christian virtue in the defender.

    I agree that it's all but impossible for a parent actively involved in her child's upbringing not to influence that child with her religious belief or non-belief and that, if her beliefs happen to be true and if embracing them happens to have a lifetime's or even a posthumous eternity's vital importance, a good parent could be considered terribly remiss not to deliberately exert that influence.

    But I guess I'm raising the open questions of how far a parent should go to influence or indoctrinate her children in religious or non-religious beliefs, and how much influence a parent and the environment in general can and should exert over anybody's choice of religion or non-religion. And finally, if such choices and, ultimately, one's eternal fate can be greatly influenced by one's parental and larger environment, how fair is it that some people's odds of eternal salvation are enhanced by a favorable upbringing and environment while other people's are diminished by unfavorable ones?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Steve,

    Whether a given Christian apologist does or does not follow (or obey) a mandate to argue with discussion topics rather than with discussion participants is largely immaterial to the existence of the mandate itself. In other words, if someone wanted to examine Christianity (rather than individual Christians), he could see we have (fairly reasonable) standards and goals of behavior.

    "Finally, brethren, rejoice, be made complete, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."
    2 Corinthians 13:11

    On the subject of parental influence, I still think it begs the question (or opens that door) to decide what parents should or should not teach their children--when we’re talking about the subject of ideas. As a society, we can place restrictions on behavior that (for example) causes physical harm, but I don’t find a basis for restricting ideas, apart from simply assuming they’re false.

    As for the “odds of eternal salvation,” I think this is another misunderstanding. It assumes salvation is transactional (e.g. if a person happens to hear the right message and make the right response, then he gets in) instead of relational (e.g. a person’s willingness to trust God is determined by his response to the knowledge of God he possesses).

    There's a distinction between knowing something essentially and knowing something exhaustively. Historically, Christianity has different theological traditions that have agreed upon essential truths (e.g. God grants salvation by grace), although they have disagreed about the exhaustive explanation or details of those truths (e.g. the mechanisms by which He does this, such as election, predestination, and foreknowledge).

    I don’t know of any (mainstream) theologies that would describe salvation in terms of “odds.” Most, if not all, would affirm that God has already chosen those whom He will grant salvation.

    "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will"
    Ephesians 1:4-5

    This means salvation isn’t based on odds. It’s based on God’s choice. That choice is conditioned by relational love, which (among other things) encompasses a practical understanding that, over history, every person will not receive the same information; however, each receives essential information.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve, nice post.

    //Yet, I wonder if and where parents should draw the line between sound and suitable teaching that enhances a child's religious knowledge but preserves and promotes her autonomy on the one hand and forceful indoctrination that interferes with a child's ability to make up his own mind about religion on the other.//

    This is a really difficult question to answer. First, I would have to draw the line between various religions. Since all religions are either incoherent at their core or they contradict one another on various foundational positions, no two can possibly be true, though obviously they can all be wrong. Now, indoctrinating kids into believing something that is false could easily be seen to be violence, especially when those beliefs are socially at odds with the culture. However, with respect to Christianity, the opposite could also be seen as violence, and a violence of much greater magnitude - to not do everything in your power to keep people from falsehood and ultimately from their eternal judgement, especially those who are your own flesh and blood. I'm definitely not talking about falsifying information and the like. Dishonesty has never been a friend to truth. The means with which the apologetics takes place is important, sometimes even more important, than the arguments. But a concerted effort to teach kids the reasons why certain things are true and others false, is very important. I think when kids don't get this they grow up within the confines of mere religiosity as a cultural phenomenon, and not necessarily something that is objectively true. This is why so many kids leave their faith during their college years.

    I personally think it is paramount to give reasons for believing things to be true (anything really, but especially Christianity) from as early of an age as possible, and not necessarily forcibly so. What I do is drop questions when the proper opportunity presents itself, to incite thought and introspection. I've rarely had an instance where a more cogent question or a more solid grasp of the idea did not come back to me from my 10-year-old. He actually rebutted one of Dawkins' fallacious counter arguments against God all by himself.

    We don't give kids enough credit. I think as kids mature, it is inevitable that they will start asking questions on their own. When that happens demonstrating the good reasons for holding whatever position is important for rational creatures. But if I had to err on one side or the other, I'd rather provide more information about why Christianity is true, than less. What's at stake is of much greater significance that anyone should be merely cavalier about the fate of their loved ones.

    I don't know if I necessarily gave you an answer to your initial question, but perhaps a small contribution in the way I approach this issue, can be somewhat helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you, Eric and Arthur. I can certainly understand Christians doing everything they can to provide good arguments and evidence for Christianity to their children without being unduly coercive about it, and, Arthur, I like your stated approach of relying primarily on incisive questions to stimulate thoughtfulness in your children.

    However, I have to say that I'm still perplexed by the seeming unfairness, if Christianity is true, of some children reaping the benefits of this kind of parenting while other children without such parenting do not. Eric, I'm afraid I just don't find it very believable, at least at my current level of understanding, that every person will receive and be in a position to respond in the same way to the same "essential information" even if they don't receive the same amount of information within the context of the same body, brain, mind, and social and cultural environment.

    It seems to me that whether or not someone embraces Christianity is determined by a complex interplay of physico-bio-psycho-socio-cultural factors, including one's upbringing, and that one must conclude not only that the "odds" of some people being saved are better than those of others for reasons for which an individual bears no ultimate responsibility, but also that this disparity in conditions determining one's salvific faith or lack thereof is obscenely unfair.

    In other words, I think what I'm suggesting, although I certainly need to give the matter further thought, is that faith doesn't seem to be a matter of free will for which people can be held eternally responsible, and, yet, if it isn't, Christianity itself seems to inhabit very shaky ground.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Steve,

    Hmm, I'm not sure we're on the same page here. Let's look at some comparative examples.

    SA - Susan, American, age 15, raised in a Christian home
    SB - Hei, Vietnamese, age 15, raised in a Buddhist home

    Benefits (in a Christian context)
    SA - belief in Christianity, leading to living a Christian life, leading to salvation
    SB - non-belief in Christianity, not living of a Christian life, hence no leading to salvation

    It seems that you're assuming "fairness" is contingent on equal opportunity. That is, if believing in Christianity leads to living a Christian life, and if living a Christian life leads to salvation, then Susan has an "unfair" advantage over Hei. Susan's "location" somehow gives her an advantage.

    I'd say the conflict you're having is over a particular soteriology (study or theory of salvation). But not every Christian tradition would agree with this soteriology.

    Biblical theology would state that God grants salvation through faith and (as I mentioned earlier) He has chosen those whom He will save before the foundation of the world. This means that Susan isn't somehow "more likely" to be chosen based on her location. If she or Hei has been chosen, this election already occurred.

    What traditional (systematic) theology attempts to do is to describe every detail of this process. Biblical theology provides the essential framework, and we attempt to fill it in with exhaustive doctrine. Because the former is revealed and not the latter, a given theology (or soteriology in this case) could simply be faulty. We have the freedom to agree or disagree at this level.

    What I'm saying here is that you're making a judgment about Christianity (in general) based on feelings of unfairness over a particular soteriology (that many Christians wouldn't necessarily agree with). Some Christian denominations would strongly disagree that belief in "Christianity" or "living a Christian life" leads to salvation.

    Many would also disagree that location necessarily affords better "odds" at being saved. For some, the concept of "odds" in salvation is a false premise. It isn't that different people at different locations are somehow expected to "respond in the same way to the same "essential information.'" Each is viewed as an individual according to his or her responses to whatever environment is ordained by God.

    "And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us"
    Acts 17:26-27

    Location isn't the determining factor for "fairness." Again, I still think your concept of salvation is something like that of a secret society where people only get in if they know the right password, rather than that of God making Himself known to people within their cultures and societies, even given their learned behaviors and prejudices.

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  15. cont'd

    But let's explore the scenario that (because of location) Susan has an unfair advantage over Hei. Since the majority of people on earth also don't share Susan's upbringing, they're at a disadvantage as well. And yet beyond this, over the course of history, both before and after Christ (and the beginning of Christianity), we're talking about a huge number of people.

    If this "odds" soteriology is true, then the "odds" of having a large number of people in heaven would be extremely slim. The number should be extremely small. But from the vision of Revelation:

    "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'"
    Revelation 7:9-10

    This number (from every nation, including Hei's) is a portion of those chosen by God for salvation. So, it's not really a matter of something seeming or appearing unfair. It's a matter of whether the results actually are unfair. And yet, in the bigger picture, a feeling of fairness or unfairness is irrelevant to reality.

    e

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would tend to agree with Eric. God reveals himself to people of vastly different backgrounds, even to people who've not had ANY cultural Christian influence. I myself grew up under a Communist regime. This happens sometimes even in places where the culture is explicitly hostile to Christianity. Check out this: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid6415399001?bctid=6515453001 and this http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/testimonies/testimony_nasrin.wmv

    ReplyDelete