BABINC Homepage Articles & Books Andy's Index
Did you ever hear this taunt when you were a kid? If you didn't,
you're a lot younger than I am. Back in the thirties, this was a
childish polemic. Since then, many of us grew up, went to college
and graduate school, and learned how to utter a more sophisticated
polemic (attack) or apologetic (defense).
This came to mind as I read Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth. Nancy is a
product of Francis A. Schaeffer's L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland
where she studied. L'Abri now offers a worldview curriculum based
on her book. Pearcey calls for a Christianity better equipped to
free itself from the "cultural captivity" of the world. It follows
the thinking of Dutch neo-Calvinists such as Kuyper and Dooyeweerd.
Her point is well taken. Christianity has been reduced by the world
to a "faith-based" system that doesn't require fact. The
unbelieving world maintains that factuality is the domain of
science, not religion. She argues that apologetics, the branch of
theology that is concerned with the defense or proof of
Christianity, needs to be taught to believers today if we are to
free ourselves from the worldly view--that we are just like any
other faith-based system that believes what has been culturally
instilled in us, but is not based on fact.
Though she makes a valid point in her book, I, as a retired pastor
and active preacher and Bible teacher, have a theological bias.
It's over where she places apologetics in a theological curriculum.
It sounds like she makes apologetics the center and puts theology at
the periphery. I agree with Kuyper who argues for apologetics at
the periphery.
Most people have never heard a sermon from Genesis on intelligent
design. Most have not heard a sermon on creation and a study of the
Hebrew words min (animals created after their kind) and mishpachah
(the animals entered the ark one family after another). Most people
have not heard a sermon from Psalm 19 or Romans 1 on natural
revelation and its importance. Most people have never heard a
sermon on common grace from The Book of Acts and the preaching of
Paul. They simply don't know that even though the unbeliever is
blind to efficacious grace, he still is touched by natural
revelation and common grace--and because of their rejection comes
the condemnation of God. This is why Paul is so hard on the
unbeliever in Romans 1. Natural revelation even speaks to the
unbeliever of God's "eternal power and Godhead."
In the homiletic process, the preacher must make it clear that these
truths challenge unbelief. In applying the sermon, the preacher
needs to tell the people that there is such a thing called
"apologetics" and how apologetics can be used. But our apologetic
will sound like the practiced recitation of a Jehovah's Witness
unless we make biblical facts understandable and the center of our
theological teaching and preaching.
Dan R. Smedra, Webmaster of withChrist.org, raises a good question.
Why, given the fact that this excellent apologetic originated with
the Dutch, are Holland and the Scandinavian Countries still in
"cultural captivity?" I don't think that better apologetics will
supplant better preaching of the truth, the total truth. But Dan
probably has a more balanced view of theology and apologetics. He
sees them as a pair of scissors. I have to agree--in spite of my
bias. Let's just make sure both blades are really sharp!
# # #