Re: Dilemma for the Christian Author
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:49 pm
I agree with you about defending the inerrancy of the Bible, and usually avoid the issue altogether. Bruxy Cavey has a very good methodology when dealing with this by always bringing it back to Jesus (since Jesus has a pretty good reputation, even among skeptics and adherents of others religions). I once heard Bruxy debate an atheist and the argument went something like this (paraphrasing here):
Skeptic: We can't trust the bible so how do you know Jesus even existed?
Bruxy: Because we have his teachings.
Skeptic: But we don't even know if some guy named Jesus said those things.
Bruxy: The teachings came from somebody because they exist. So whoever taught these things is the dude I want to follow because they're amazing. And since Jesus was a very common name in first century Palestine, we might as well call him "Jesus."
Bruxy argues that we ought to deflate every tangential argument, which can quickly spiral into debating unimportant matters, by bringing it back to Jesus as quickly as possible.
"As a Christian, don't you reject evolution?"
"I have no idea whether we evolved or not, so let's talk about the historical Jesus."
"But don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?"
"Beats me. I wasn't around when it formed. But the records about Jesus are pretty impressive."
"Yeah, but the bible is full of contradictions."
"Some think so, others don't. But Jesus is an impressive figure. We actually know a lot about him. Do you know religious people hated him too?"
"Really? Why?"
That, to me, is an effective apologetic. Sure, a knowledgeable Christian can argue about evolution and try to defend inerrancy, but the question is "why?" If we can get to Jesus as quickly as possible, and the skeptic learns some things about Christ that they didn't know before, his or her internal bias softens. We only have to defend the historicity of the gospels when uninformed skeptics think Jesus was a jerk and his teachings are immoral. Once a skeptic begins to warm up to the person of Jesus, they become more open to arguments that favor his teachings. It's a different approach than used in classical apologetics, but certainly a valid method.
I do explore evidence and arguments in the book, but that comes much later. I'd rather the reader come to like and appreciate Jesus before getting into the reasons we ought to believe he's God incarnate.
Skeptic: We can't trust the bible so how do you know Jesus even existed?
Bruxy: Because we have his teachings.
Skeptic: But we don't even know if some guy named Jesus said those things.
Bruxy: The teachings came from somebody because they exist. So whoever taught these things is the dude I want to follow because they're amazing. And since Jesus was a very common name in first century Palestine, we might as well call him "Jesus."
Bruxy argues that we ought to deflate every tangential argument, which can quickly spiral into debating unimportant matters, by bringing it back to Jesus as quickly as possible.
"As a Christian, don't you reject evolution?"
"I have no idea whether we evolved or not, so let's talk about the historical Jesus."
"But don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?"
"Beats me. I wasn't around when it formed. But the records about Jesus are pretty impressive."
"Yeah, but the bible is full of contradictions."
"Some think so, others don't. But Jesus is an impressive figure. We actually know a lot about him. Do you know religious people hated him too?"
"Really? Why?"
That, to me, is an effective apologetic. Sure, a knowledgeable Christian can argue about evolution and try to defend inerrancy, but the question is "why?" If we can get to Jesus as quickly as possible, and the skeptic learns some things about Christ that they didn't know before, his or her internal bias softens. We only have to defend the historicity of the gospels when uninformed skeptics think Jesus was a jerk and his teachings are immoral. Once a skeptic begins to warm up to the person of Jesus, they become more open to arguments that favor his teachings. It's a different approach than used in classical apologetics, but certainly a valid method.
I do explore evidence and arguments in the book, but that comes much later. I'd rather the reader come to like and appreciate Jesus before getting into the reasons we ought to believe he's God incarnate.