When I was in college I practiced a martial art known as Aikido. Like many martial arts schools, one of the things we did was offer women’s self defense classes. These generally consisted of a single 2-3 hour class on a Saturday. Now the class was good as far as it goes - Aikido has some pretty cool techniques that do not require the ability to vertically kick an assailant in the face while he is standing behind you. But this class, like most others I have heard about, also had serious limitations, some of which concerned me.
My biggest worry was over these women attaining a false sense of security because they learned a few cool tricks in a safe, controlled environment (humorous example). There is a reason people train in the martial arts for years before they are considered proficient (historically, a black belt merely indicated that someone had trained long enough to no longer be considered a beginner!). You just can’t learn that much in 2-3 hours. The reality is that given the number of possible attacks and technical mistakes that can be made, these women might be worse off than if they had not come in the first place. We tried to stress this weakness in the classes in the hopes that we would get some full time students, but that rarely happened.
I think apologetic training is a lot like that. I have seen the material covered in a semester-long, grad-level course covered in a single day seminar. Even scarier, the semester-long course (which lasts about 40 hours total) is itself a summary overview of several topics. At best, the folks that go to the seminar will learn how to state a few arguments, but they probably won’t really understand them or have a decent response to any objections that might be raised. And, just as a woman who gets assaulted might blame her defeat on the martial art she “learned” at a one day seminar, an apologist might conclude that “apologetic arguments just don’t work.” Worse, he might conclude that Christianity is actually false.
I hope those that read a Lee Strobel book or listen to Hank Hanegraaff for a few months won’t get the mistaken impression that quips and quotes are all that apologetics is about. There is a massive, long term, tradition of study behind the answers given to various attacks against Christianity. Simply learning “How to answer someone who says ____???” does not make one an apologist. My advice to the women was to continue in their practice of the martial arts and not to simply rely on a few tricks. Likewise, my advice to those who wish to defend their faith is to start working through the major issues (e.g., Jesus’ resurrection, the existence of God, the problem of evil, etc.) until they can hold their own in a conversation on those topics without having to refer to books or notes. Then their confidence will be properly placed and they will really own the material instead of just being able to quote the quips!
10 responses so far ↓
vinny // December 20, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Frankly, I have always thought Lee Strobel’s purpose is to create a false sense of security. His readers are not prepared to deal with any of the positions that the “Case for” books purport to refute, but they are comforted to believe that refutations exist.
Doug Beaumont // December 20, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Do you really think that is his purpose??? That does not seem very charitable. I like to think of the “Case” books as expanded bibliographies. People can profit by reading his books first and then the books by the people he interviews. Lee may not be much of a scholar himself, but he knows who to interview. (This does not mean that he deserves thousands of dollars to tell stories for 45 minutes though . . .)
vinny // December 21, 2007 at 2:10 am
As uncharitable as it may sound, I do think his purpose is something very close to that. By portraying himself as a tough investigative journalist, he gives his readers the misleading impression that he is forcing his scholars to confront the most difficult questions that the skeptics might have to offer. In fact, he serves up softballs and lauds their answers as convincing when any self-respecting skeptic could pose several pointed follow up questions. His readers wind up believing incorrectly both that they understand the skeptics’ positions and that they are equipped with arguments and evidence that skeptics are going to find convincing. In order to obtain a real sense of security, his readers would have to go out and read those liberal scholars that Strobel purports to refute and satisfy themselves that they have in fact been refuted.
Doug Beaumont // December 21, 2007 at 3:30 am
I agree that the Case books are not, by themselves, sufficient for a complete apologetic. But then neither is a whole library at times. I have seen whole debates transcribed into books that are longer than the Case books and even these only represent a few hours of discussion and critique. But they are good introductions. Maybe each one should be called “The Case for ___, Round One”! (And titles are also rarely in the author’s hands).
What I said about charity has to do with what one can legitimately claim to know about an author’s intent based on non-intentional evidence. Purpose implies . . . well . . . purpose! Lee’s purpose could be to do exactly what you think he should be doing but he may simply lack the scholarship to accomplish that goal.
Further, if there are better objections or follow ups to his questions then the scholars he interviews hold at least some responsibility for including those elements in their responses. Unless Strobel or his publishers are editing out this material then it is mere speculation as to who is at fault.
We can critique Lee’s writings without guessing at his motives. If Lee is convinced by the arguments he presents, and states that, that in no way indicts him for being dishonest in his presentation. Without better evidence it is a case of judgment (the kind Jesus actually warned about in Mt. 7).
vinny // December 21, 2007 at 5:48 am
A few weeks ago, I heard Lee Strobel on Hank Hanegraaf’s Bible Answer Man program claiming that he cross-examined leading scientists with skeptical questions for his Case for a Creator DVD. I have also read many of the transcripts from Kitzmiller v. Dover School District in which those same experts (at least the ones who did not withdraw from the case before trial) were subjected to real cross-examination in open court. There is no comparison.
My primary objection to Strobel is that he continually touts the skills he developed as a skeptical investigative legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune and claims to be using these skills in his books to get at answers that are supported by objective evidence. He repeatedly invokes the image of a legal proceeding in which objective evidence is weighed in order to determine the facts. And yet, the evidence and expert testimony on every question is supplied exclusively by scholars who support the conservative Christian position on every issue. Strobel pretends to play the role of the skeptical questioner challenging the expert when in fact he is an advocate for the expert’s viewpoint.
I have seen enough blog posts from Strobel’s fans to know that many of them are convinced that he is engaged in objective fact finding missions in his books, or at least that his books replicate such fact finding. Many of them are convinced that reading Strobel’s books gives them a good picture of both sides of the argument.
I doubt that I agree with William Lane Craig much more than I agree with Strobel, but I respect the fact that he is willing to debate leading scholars with opposing viewpoints. Someone who listens to one of these debates can feel confident that Craig was challenged by a strong opponent who was trying his best to refute Craig’s views. Strobel’s fans think that is what they are getting in his books and I think he knows it.
Doug Beaumont // December 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Yes, I agree that this is a problem - just not that he deliberately sets out to cause a problem per se.
W. L. Craig, on the other hand, is just the opposite. He is a careful scholar who regularly defeats his debate opponents on their own turf. He does this live as well as in books. Plus he is just a genuinely kind person. I’ve never even heard of someone accusing him of poor scholarship, stacking the deck, or being ungracious in his dealings with those who disagree with hem.
vinny // December 21, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I happen to think you are being overly charitable to Strobel. He has been at this much too long not to take responsibility for how his works are interpreted.
As far as Craig goes, the only thing I have examined closely is his citation of the A.N. Sherwin-White, an Oxford professor of ancient Roman history. I did not find his scholarship all that careful. http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/william-lane-craigs-unbelievable.html
Rachael // December 23, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I’m glad you bring up “Case for Christ”. I was highly annoyed by that book and I thought it was the only argument out there for Christianity which was a huge let down. I was hoping to at least find something to challenge my atheist brother but really I want to better understand my own faith and beliefs
Nathan // December 27, 2007 at 7:28 am
Hi Doug, this is completely off topic…didn’t you have a blog a while back that talked about a lot of the common misconceptions regarding the “Christmas story”. I would like to reread it if you have it online somewhere. Thanks!
Doug Beaumont // December 27, 2007 at 9:13 pm
That would be http://ircontent.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/nativity-bloopers/
Leave a Comment