POPULAR OBJECTIONS, POWERFUL ANSWERS

The ABCs of Defending the Christian Faith in Africa

THE APOLOGETICS TASK FORCE Apologetics Project, NEGST, Nairobi

Popular Objections, Powerful Answers:

The ABCs of Defending the Christian Faith in Africa

by The Apologetics Task Force

Published in 2008 by the Apologetics Project NEGST, Nairobi, KENYA Printed in Kenya. PUBLISHING CONTRIBUTORS Project Facilitator: Dr. Mark Shaw; Managing Editor: Deborah Head; Editorial Team: Josh Amwago, Peter Olusola Atoyebi, Søren Dalsgaard, John Okumu Masinde, Wambui Mburu, Kenneth Ofula; Marketing Team: Robert Kibiwot, Simon Makau, Mutuku Justus, Moses Njenga Ng’ang’a, Fredrick Otieno Amolo; Production Team: Andrew Y. Bashir, Kenneth Isige, Kilama Dennis All scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version of the Bible, copyrighted © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. All rights reserved. This material is not subject to copyright law. Reproduction is permissible in any form if the content is not altered and the source is referenced. The views presented in this book do not necessarily reflect those of the Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology in Nairobi, Kenya.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 2008 Apologetics Task Force of NEGST wishes to acknowledge the contribution of all its

members who tirelessly worked in the midst of very tight schedules to make the publication of this book possible. The great effort of the lecturer, Dr. Mark Shaw, who originated and coordinated the writing of the book, is greatly appreciated. The different committees of the class ensured prompt editing, production and marketing of the book. Finally, the class appreciates the efforts of their

colleague, Debbie Head, who, as managing editor, gave of her time and effort to see to the timely completion of the book project.

v

contents

Preface vii

1 WANGARI’S DILEMMA 1 Dr. Mark Shaw

2 THE ABCS OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS 5 Dr. Mark Shaw

3 CHALLENGE 1: YOUR BIBLE IS NOT TRUE 23 Dr. Mark Shaw

4 CHALLENGE 2: YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST 39

Dr. Mark Shaw

5 CHALLENGE 3: YOUR GOD DID NOT CREATE 51 Andrew Y. Bashir, Kenneth Isige, Kilama Dennis

6 CHALLENGE 4: YOUR GOD IS NOT GOOD 67

Fredrick Otieno Amolo, Moses Njenga Ng’ang’a, Mutuku Justus, Robert Kibiwot, Simon Makau

7 CHALLENGE 5: YOUR GOD IS TOO NARROW 75

John Okumu Masinde, Søren Dalsgaard, Wambui Mburu

8 CHALLENGE 6: YOUR GOD IS TOO WHITE 89

Josh Amwago, Kenneth Ofula, Peter Olusola Atoyebi

9 CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON DOING APOLOGETICS IN AFRICA 105

Dr. Mark Shaw

vi

vii

preface

‚Africans don’t need apologetics because all Africans believe in God.‛ Have you ever heard this comment? Are there atheists in Africa? If one had lived in Ethiopia, Mozambique or Angola during the decades of communist rule every student would have been subjected to the tenets of atheism. Departments of religion in our universities question the reliability of the Bible or suggest that Christianity is a foreign import. Even as the faith is growing across the continent so also are the objections to Christian faith, both from members of other religions or no religion. A Christian might be tempted to simply shrug and walk away when presented with an intellectual challenge. But 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to ‚Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.‛

If you have picked up this workbook, you probably have a strong interest in obeying the command of 1 Peter 3. This workbook will help you do so. It presents an ‚ABC‛ method that can both strengthen your faith and help you challenge non-Christians in ways that will draw them to the Gospel.

The chapters here wrestle with various attacks on Christian faith such as God’s existence, his goodness, creation vs. naturalistic evolution, Christianity’s alleged foreignness, Christ’s uniqueness and the Bible’s reliability. Through the story of a young Christian university student, Wangari, and her mentor Mary, you will learn what these objections are all about and how best to answer them.

This workbook and its contents grew out of an apologetics class at Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology in 2008. The entire class wrestled with the questions in this workbook and sought to find effective Christian responses. In the dialogues and email commentaries that follow we hope you also will find useful resources to help you ‚always be prepared to give an answer‛ for your hope.

Mark Shaw

1

chapter 1

Wangari’s Dilemma Wangari had just completed her first term at the university and was visiting her friend and former high school teacher, Mary, during Christmas break. Mary was a literature teacher who had taught Wangari for two years, during which time they had developed a deep friendship. Wangari had accepted Christ as her saviour through Mary's witness. Wangari was glad to see Mary again, and on the first night together they laughed a lot about old times and about Wangari's funny experiences at university. On the second day of the visit, however, Mary sensed that something was wrong. She asked Wangari to go for a long walk, and soon they were deep in conversation. Something was indeed wrong, Wangari admitted. Her first term at University had been a greater challenge to her faith than she had anticipated. She felt battered spiritually and intellectually, she confessed. Wangari told Mary that she felt like dropping out. "Can a Christian survive in a secular university?" Wangari asked Mary. Mary had been a literature major at the same university a few years before. She had experienced a lot of what Wangari was going through, but she said little and kept asking questions. What exactly happened?‛ Over the following days her visit Wangari revealed several serious challenges to her faith that she had encountered during the last few weeks. Challenge 1 : Your Bible is Not True One of the first attacks on Wangari’s faith came from two other students with whom she had lunch one day. One student, Theo, described himself as a ‚post-modern agnostic.‛ Wangari wasn’t sure what that meant. The other student, Ahmad, was a Muslim. Wangari told them both about her Christian commitment and then began sharing some Scripture passages with them.

"Hold on, Wangari," Theo had said. "I'm happy that you have something to believe in but don't expect me to believe your Bible. Your Bible is just not true. Its history is unreliable. Its ideas are simply the ideas of men just like me. Furthermore it is a text that was written to oppress the masses and win control for a ruling elite. I reject all totalising ideologies and all metanarratives. Since there is no absolute truth, your Bible does not speak with any more authority than the writings of Nelson Mandela or Karl Marx." He was amiable when he said this but Wangari was shaken by the strength of his conviction that the Bible was not, could not and should not be considered an absolute word from God. Ahmad also chimed in that the Quran is the true word of God.

‚The Bible of the Christians is full of errors proving it was corrupted,‛ said Ahmad. He gave a number of examples of factual errors in the Bible. Wangari was stunned into silence. She didn't really know how to respond to Ahmad’s attacks or answer his examples. She wasn’t sure what Theo meant by "totalising ideologies" and

2

"metanarratives" but she got the point very clearly that for both of them and probably thousands of other thinking people at the university the Bible was simply just not true. Challenge 2: Your God Does Not Exist A surprising challenge came from her psychology class. For the first few weeks the class was one her favourites. She found the study of the human psyche fascinating and fun. Things took a negative turn however, when the professor did a unit on psychology and religion, and shared the ideas of Sigmund Freud. The professor explained that Freud saw religion as a human invention explained by the mechanism of wish-fulfilment.

"Nobody really wants to die," said the teacher. "So we invent an afterlife to satisfy our deep wish for immortality. Nobody likes to live without meaning and purpose, so we invent a Father-figure God who will take care of us and lead us to some meaningful end." The professor seemed to agree with Freud that Christianity and its concept of God was merely a psychological crutch that people invented in order to cope with the sombre reality that life has no meaning, and that death is the only future reality. A better solution for the human predicament, said the professor, was to admit that God does not exist and to get on with the real work of building a better world while we have the chance. Making up fairy tales, he went on to say, is only for children. Coming of age means that we leave our fairy tales behind. Wangari was troubled by these words. Is Christianity an expression of wish-fulfilment and therefore, only a psychological illusion? Challenge 3: Your God Did Not Create Wangari had been impressed with her biology teacher, Dr. Otieno. She even reminded Wangari a little bit of Mary, for both were brilliant and talented teachers. Dr Otieno had gone on from her university studies and had received her PhD from a prestigious British university. Unlike Mary, Dr Otieno was a convinced evolutionist. She spent the first few weeks laying out an imposing argument for an evolutionary view of the world. She pointed to the convergence of evidence from the various sciences, particularly physics and the fossil record. Wangari could not forget the teacher's closing words after her last lecture on evolution.

"The universe is all there is and all there ever will be." Without coming right out and saying it, Dr Otieno was communicating a clear message to Wangari that said "Your God did not create." Wangari read Genesis chapter one several times but couldn't seem to square what she was reading with all the evidence for evolution that Dr Otieno had given in class. Had science discredited God as the creator? Challenge 4: Your God is Not Good One troubling episode occurred when Wangari was walking with a friend down Moi Avenue in downtown Nairobi. They passed crippled children and shrivelled mothers with dying babies. After seeing case after case of suffering humanity Wangari's friend blurted out, "If your God is so good, Wangari, why does he allow so much suffering? Multiply these dying babies by millions and you have my reasons for rejecting this God you're so crazy about." Wangari defended God's goodness to her friend but her arguments seemed

3

weak and ineffective. How could one believe in the goodness of God in a world of such suffering and evil? Challenge 5: Your God is Too Narrow One highlight of the term for Wangari was the chance to get to know someone from another faith. She worked on a class project with an Asian girl named Shoba, who was a devout Hindu. Wangari was impressed with her kindness and friendliness. She wasn't at all like some other Asians she had known at secondary school who seemed cliquish and prejudiced against Africans. Shoba began to talk to Wangari about her faith in Krishna the same way Wangari talked about her faith in Christ. Wangari was intrigued. A few weeks later in religion class, the lecturer made a strong case for the equality of all religions before God and the arrogance of any one religion claiming to be better than all the other ones. Wangari knew that Christ was the only way but couldn't really get over the shock of Shoba's graciousness and her lecturer's strong arguments for pluralism. If God wanted to reveal himself to all mankind wouldn't he do it in a universal way rather than in a narrow way, through Israel and its Messiah? Wasn’t it arrogant for Christians to think they have the only way? Challenge 6: Your God is Too White Literature was Wangari's strongest subject and she had originally looked forward to her course on African literature. They were studying the novels of Ngugi wa Thiong’o. She had read him in secondary school but the university class was probing his writings more deeply. Wangari was particularly struck by wa Thiong’o's idea of "homecoming". Her teacher understood this as involving a rejection of Western Christianity which was too white and foreign. Christianity was simply the religious expression of colonialism according to wa Thiong’o. Was the Gospel foreign? Was the Christian God too white? Could one be truly African and follow a foreign religion?

Mary had listened intently to Wangari's dilemma—how to be a witness for Christ in a

world that seems to be stronger in its unbelief than she was in her Christian belief. How could she keep from getting eaten alive by the challenges to her faith that she was encountering? Wangari also shared how her Christian friends responded to her questions about Christianity. Some of them had told her that she didn't need to find rational defences for her faith. She was just supposed to believe. Others had told her to read certain books showing that non-Christians didn't have all the right facts about the Christian view of creation, morality and Christ, that Wangari should try to master the new facts and refute her non-Christian critics with superior information. Again, Mary listened. Finally, she told Wangari that she wanted to share a third way to defend the faith that avoided both the "faith alone" and the "facts alone" approaches of some of Wangari's Christian friends. Mary told Wangari many things over the next few days. One thing that she emphasized over and over again was the power of story and how non-Christians struggle over faith in their anti-Christian stories as fully as Wangari struggled with her faith in the Christian story. Mary told Wangari how to analyse stories and how non-Christian stories

4

were actually "burial myths" designed to get rid of the biblical God. Mary talked a lot about winning the battle at the level of presuppositions and master narratives. Wangari was confused at first, but eventually what Mary shared began to make sense. When it was time to leave Wangari felt ready to return to the University.

For discussion and application

1. Review the six challenges mentioned in the case. Which ones do you believe are the most difficult for the Christian to deal with? Which are the easiest?

2. Wangari was given advice by her Christian friends. Some told her to avoid reason altogether and exercise "faith alone." Others seemed to believe that one had to fight fire with fire and therefore reason and facts were the proper way to defend the faith. What is your personal opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches?

3. Read 1 Pet. 3:15. What are we defending when we do apologetics? Do we have to defend everything that Christians do or say, or everything that the church does in the name of Christ? What are the implications of this passage in Peter for the behaviour of the apologist?

4. What is the view of apologetics that Mary outlines? What do you think she means about the power of story and that non-Christian stories are ‚burial myths‛? How does one win the apologetic battle on the level of presuppositions and master narratives?

5. Read 2 Cor. 10:1–6. a. Note v. 3. How do we argue in a way that avoids arguing like the world? What

is characteristic of fallen human argument? b. Note v. 5. How does one demolish intellectual strongholds and capture every

thought? What are the implications of Paul’s words for apologetics?

5

chapter 2

The ABCs of Christian Apologetics

Wangari came back from her discussion with Mary with a new approach to defending her faith on campus. But what was this new approach? Why do we need a new approach in the first place? How does one use this approach in practise? In this chapter of the workbook we seek to answer these questions. But first we need to listen in as Wangari meets Mulandi for a pleasant argument about Christian apologetics. WANGARI TALKS TO MULANDI: An example of the ABC

method of apologetics Wangari: Good morning, Mulandi. On your way to class? Mulandi: Good morning to you, Wangari. No, I am on my way to a special Christian Union

meeting. Wangari: What's so special about the meeting? Mulandi: We are bringing in a guest speaker from overseas who will prove that the Bible

is right and science is wrong. Wangari: Can't both be right? Didn't God make the book of nature as well as the book of

scripture? Mulandi: You obviously weren't at the last Christian Union debate. A Christian pastor

debated a biology professor. The pastor said that he would just use scripture and not reason to refute the claims of atheistic evolution. The biology professor simply gave the facts of evolution. She also gave examples of how Christians have tried to suppress science for centuries.

Wangari: What happened? Mulandi: The pastor got slaughtered. Some of the non-Christians in the audience were

actually laughing at him by the end of the debate. They gave the professor a standing ovation. It was a major defeat for our side.

Wangari: So you think this expert from overseas will be able to do better? Mulandi: I certainly hope so. We have to show that the Bible is right and that science and

reason are wrong. Wangari: Are you sure that is the best way to do Christian apologetics? Mulandi: Do you have a better suggestion? Wangari: If you had asked me that several months ago the answer would have been

"no." But I recently talked to my friend and mentor, Mary and she gave me a new approach to answering non-Christian questions or challenges about my faith?

Mulandi: So what is Mary's approach? Wangari: It's as simple as ABC! A is answering honest questions with honest answers. B

is behaving like a Christian. C is capturing every thought for Christ. Mulandi: I don't think I have heard of this. Tell me more.

6

Wangari: It goes something like this. Play along with me by pretending to be a non-Christian critic of the Christian faith.

Mulandi: Okay. Wangari: Let's pretend that you are a religious pluralist who believes that all religions lead

to God and you object to the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way. You have made two arguments against Christ's uniqueness. The first argument is from history. The facts of history show that people hold to the religion they grow up with. If you are an Arab, you are a Muslim; a European, a Christian; and Indian, a Hindu. Christ can't be the saviour of all because Christianity is only available in certain areas. How could a God of the whole world demand that people believe a religion that is not even available in their area? The second argument for religious pluralism is that it is the best model of living in harmony in the world whereas Christ's uniqueness leads to arrogance, intolerance and violence.

Mulandi: Let's get started. Christ can't be the only way because Christianity is not available all over the world. You hold to the religion you grow up with in your culture. Christianity is the religion of the West because westerners grew up with it.

Wangari: That sounds like an honest question. But let me offer a different perspective on religious choice.

Mulandi: What is your perspective? Wangari: Globalization and the interaction of culture over the last several centuries means

that Christianity is now available everywhere. Did you know that there are more Anglicans in church on Sunday in Nigeria than there are in the United Kingdom?

Mulandi: No, I didn't know that. Wangari: In which nation do you think the largest order of Jesuits can be found? Mulandi: Ireland, I would guess, because that is one of the most catholic countries in

Europe. Wangari: Good guess but wrong. India has more Jesuits than any other country. Wangari: Christianity is actually growing faster in Latin America, Africa, and Asia than it is

in the West. One could say that Christianity is more a religion of the non-West now than it is of Europe or North America.

Mulandi: So what? How does that affect my objection that people will still tend to follow the religion of their area?

Wangari: Statistics show that Christianity appeals to Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Koreans and Africans. Millions don't just blindly accept whatever their traditional faith is. Millions and millions of people not only choose Christianity out of the number of religious choices in their area but do so because they believe that Jesus is the only way.

Mulandi: I still think I am right that religion is a matter of culture. Wangari: And I am not telling you that you can't believe that. All I am trying to show is that

there are other facts that support the universal appeal of Christianity and its message that Christ is the only way. There are more Christians in traditionally non-Christian parts of the world than in traditionally Christian ones. Do you agree that there is another way to think about religious pluralism than just the regional approach?

7

Mulandi: I suppose so. But I still think I'm right. Wangari: No problem. I'm just establishing that there a number of honest answers to

some of these big questions. Christian answers often have as much factual or logical support as non-Christian answers to these questions. Do you agree that there can be several different valid perspectives?

Mulandi: Yes, of course. Wangari: Then, we will not settle the question of religious pluralism simply by statistics

and rational arguments since these kinds of arguments may support even opposing viewpoints.

Mulandi: I suppose so. Does that mean our conversation is over? Wangari: No. Because I'd like to tell you that there are things about Christianity that I am

sorry for. Mulandi: Sorry for! Like what? Do you mean you don't believe Christ is the only way? Wangari: No, I do believe he is the only way. But I believe that because I have had a

personal encounter with Jesus that revolutionized my thinking about who he is and what he has accomplished. This encounter has so captivated me that my mind is now captive to the Bible, the book in which Jesus gives us his word about life, salvation and everything else.

Mulandi: You mean you've been brainwashed by the Bible. I thought you said you were going to say you were sorry.

Wangari: I am. Because the same Bible that tells me in John 14:6 that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, also tells me to love my enemies, to be kind to those who disagree with or persecute me. But many Christians who insist on claims of Christ have refused to obey the command of Christ to love those they disagree with.

Mulandi: So you do agree that Christianity and its exclusive claims lead to violence and discord in the world.

Wangari: Not at all. I am saying the opposite. I am saying that Christians have been inconsistent in obeying Christ's word. The same word that commands me to believe he is the only way of salvation also tells me not to be arrogant or violent to those who may disagree with this. Consistent Christianity leads to love. Inconsistent Christianity can lead to violence and discord.

Mulandi: I still believe that Christian truth claims are arrogant and lead to violence. Wangari: That's okay. I am not asking you to agree with me. But I am asking you to

accept my apology that Christian practise rather than Jesus and his teaching has been a big part of the problem of cultural imperialism and religious violence.

Mulandi: Okay, I guess I accept your apology. But where does that leave us? We disagree on how people adopt a certain religion. I think it is more about place of birth and you think it is more about choice. I think religious violence and disharmony comes from one religion claiming to be the only true one and you think that it comes from not being consistent with the teaching of Jesus. We are at an impasse.

Wangari: Maybe yes, maybe no. Mulandi: What do you mean "maybe no?"

8

Wangari: Because you have implied something that not only fascinates me but is worth talking about further.

Mulandi: What? Wangari: What I’ve been hearing you say for the last few minutes is that you believe that

Christianity is but one of the many religions that lead to God and that it is wrong for Christians to claim they have the only saviour or the only way to God.

Mulandi: Yes, I would say that is an accurate summary of my position. Wangari: Are you absolutely certain of this? Mulandi: Yes, as much as anyone can be certain of anything. Wangari: Are you saying that you could be wrong and that it is possible that the Christian

position of the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ is the true one? Mulandi: No. I don’t believe that the Christian position is true. Wangari: Then you are absolutely certain that the pluralist position is true? Mulandi: Yes. I certainly believe it is truer than the Christian position. Wangari: I find your certainty about this the most interesting part of your position. Mulandi: I’m not sure I understand. Why do you find my certainty about pluralism so

interesting? Wangari: Let me put it this way. How much of a subject does one need to know in order

to have absolute certainty? 1%, 5%, 20%, 50% or 100%? Mulandi: I suppose logically absolute certainty means you need to know almost 100% but

that is impossible. No one knows 100% about anything. That's a rather silly question if you ask me.

Wangari: You have made a great point. 100% command of all the facts would be the most rational basis for absolute certainty. And I also agree with you that my question was a silly one. But I have more silly questions! May I ask you?

Mulandi: Okay. Wangari: Here is my second silly question. What percentage of all that there is to know

about God and religion do you think you know? Mulandi: That’s a ridiculous question. Wangari: I told you it was! I agree that it is a funny question but I have a reason for

asking it. Would you be willing to answer the question if I answer it first? Mulandi: I suppose so. Wangari: On the basis of my own thinking I probably know less than 1% of all there is to

know about God and world religions. Now you take a stab at the question. Mulandi: I think I know more than you do! Wangari: I believe you do. But how much more? Mulandi: Maybe 3 to 5% of all there is to know on the subject Wangari: Thanks. I have one sillier question. Would you let me ask it? Mulandi: All right. Wangari: Is it not rationally possible that in the 95 to 97% of all the facts about God and

world religions that you admit you do not know, there could be overwhelming proof of the Christian position?

Mulandi: I don’t like the question.

9

Wangari: I told you it was a silly question! If I had a million shillings I’d offer it to you to answer such a silly question but I don’t. But it would be a big help to me in my attempt to understand your position if you would answer my question for free! What would your honest answer be?

Mulandi: I suppose theoretically that something like that could happen. Wangari: Let me make sure I understand. Although you probably know more about God

and world religion than I do, you admit that you might only know a small percentage of all there is to know. You also admit that in the vast majority of the facts that you admit you do not know there could be overwhelming proof of the Christian position.

Mulandi: Yes, but you are in the same boat. You admit you know even less than I do. Couldn’t there also be overwhelming proof that the Christian position is wrong?

Wangari: Sharp observation but let’s get back to that in a moment. My problem is that you told me at the beginning that you were absolutely certain that the Christian position was not true. Now you admit that you have no rational foundation for absolute certainty.

Mulandi: So what are you getting at? Wangari: I think I now understand why you object to the Christian faith. It is not rational at

all but a faith position just like mine. But our two faith positions have at least one big difference. I begin with the rational foundation of an infinite personal and all loving God who knows 100% of all there is to know communicates absolutely reliable information about himself and his world to me through Jesus and the Bible. This is a rational basis for certainty. In contrast you begin with your own limited grasp of the facts. Behind your limited grasp of the facts lies an ocean of nature, unknown facts and the shifting sands of chance. They provide no basis for the kind of certainty you expressed to me at the beginning.

Mulandi: I don’t agree. Wangari: I realize that you don’t. Furthermore I think you can’t. May I tell you why I think it

is impossible for you to agree with me or to know the Christian position at all based on your presuppositions?

Mulandi: Okay, I’m listening. Wangari: It has to do with the stories as we’ve shared. Once I stood where you stand.

And it is at this point I would give my testimony about how I was in bondage to a master narrative that was based on ultimate irrationality (a universe that knows nothing because impersonal or a limited human mind that claims to know with absolute certainty even though it possesses only a small percentage of the facts). But this is also where I would share how master narratives can be changed and how I was led to change my irrational one to one that has ultimate rationality, the infinite personal God of the Bible and his self revelation to me in Christ and his word.

Mulandi: So that's the ABC method? Wangari: Yes. I answered your first question by showing there is always more than one

rational way to interpret the facts. Then I went on to B, by confessing that

10

Christians are often violent not because certainty produces violence but because sin and inconsistency produce violence. I apologized for this and asked you to forgive Christianity for this appalling failure. This repentance for Christian sinfulness is an important part of apologetics, especially in the post modern times.

Mulandi: But what was that last part about the silly questions? I am confused by it although I really felt like you had me on the defensive.

Wangari: That was C, Capturing every thought. This is called the presuppositional argument and it works well with the earlier evidential and fideistic arguments.

Mulandi: Wangari, I am intrigued by this approach but I would like to know more about why you use this and how you came to develop it.

Wangari: I don't actually know much about the theory behind it but I can ask my mentor, Mary, to email you and explain more.

Mulandi: Thanks. I'm late for the CU meeting but I think I may be telling them to Cancel the trip of the overseas expert. We may have a new approach to dealing with

scientific challenges to the faith!

For discussion and application

1. What do you think of Mulandi's original understanding of apologetics as "showing how science and reason are wrong?" Is that the objective of Christian apologetics? Why or why not?

2. Wangari told Mulandi that her approach was an ABC apologetics. How did she define the A part of apologetics? What A answer did she give? What was she trying to do with her A answer? Why didn't she try to completely refute the non-Christian position at this point? How effective was her A answer?

3. What was her B answer? Is it important for Christians to get back to the Bible and show that Jesus is the standard by which we test both non-Christian ideas and Christian practise? Why? What did she do in the B part of her apologetic? Did it work? Why or why not?

4. What was Wangari's C answer? How did she go about trying to capture the thought or the underlying worldview or master narrative that controls the non-Christian’s thinking? What were the silly questions she asked? Did this approach work? Why or why not?

5. Is this approach too complicated? What do you need to do to make this approach

your own and become skillful at using it? Which of the three parts is the easiest for you to use? Which is the hardest?

11

APOLOGETICS: Emails explaining the ABC method

Dear Mulandi, Wangari has told me about the conversation you had with her. She also told me that you asked for a little more explanation of the ABC method that she used. Let me give my humble attempt to explain why I use the ABC method and why I think it would work for you as well Let's begin at the beginning. What is apologetics? I will define it as a persuasive defence of the Christian faith against challenges. This involves giving a good answer that draws the person in and doesn’t just win the argument. Such a persuasive answer means we must be open to combining many different methods and not just get stuck at using only one. What are some of the different ways of doing apologetics? Let me mention three: 1. Evidentialism: This involves defending the faith through a command of the facts and the use of the law of non-contradiction. It seeks to set up reason as a neutral authority accepted by both the critic and the Christian and to carefully craft rational arguments to show that Christianity is more rational that the non-Christian argument. This approach has great value for the Christian defender willing to use it in combination with other methods but has serious limits when used alone.

a. One serious limitation is my own ignorance and limited rationality. I don't know enough about the dozens of fields of human knowledge to always be able to bring enough facts to bear on the challenge. For example, If I am arguing with a professor in biology there is no way I am going to know as much about biology as that professor. I therefore may not be able to argue as well as my non-Christian critic.

b. There is a second limitation to the use of evidences in apologetics. There is the risk of giving away the battle before it begins by caving in to the supremacy of reason and human autonomy as the source of truth. What do I mean by this? Part of the rebellion of fallen mankind is that they exalt their own thinking as though it was the standard of truth rather than admitting that their own minds are darkened, as the Bible says, and that only an omniscient, holy God knows all truth and therefore is the only source of light and truth on any subject. If we use evidentialism alone we might actually be agreeing with the non-Christian in their folly and going against the word of God.

Despite these cautions, the proper use of evidences is a very helpful tool in a fuller apologetic conversation with the non-Christian. 2. Fideism: This second approach calls for defending the faith on the basis of faith in revelation as the only authority. As you can see instantly it is something of a reaction against the abuses of evidentialism in pandering to human intellectual pride. It avoids

12

using reason, science and history and takes the high ground of proclamation of Christian truth. It rejects the pretensions of human reason and represents considerable humility on the part of the apologist. But it too has its limits. We should not focus on humbling the non-Christian so much as humbling ourselves. 1 Peter 3:15 speaks about the Christian dialoguing with the non-Christian about matters of faith. It does not tell us to call the non-Christian to humility but to make sure we are humbling ourselves as we represent Christian truth claims to non-Christians. "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." I have not always lived and thought like a Christian, even after my conversion . I have tried to be lord of my life and of my mind many times. I must humble myself during the apologetic conversation and show that I am a dependent thinker, seeking to follow the mind of Christ not an independent thinker trying to come with truth using only my own fallen perceptions. Further, 1 Peter 3:15 reminds me to "give the reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect." This means I am not trying to brow beat or intimidate the non-Christian through my arguments. I must come as someone who is not confident in the self but only in the savior. I have to be honest about where my ideas and convictions come from. Self righteous scripture spouting will only turn the non-Christian off. But if I "humble myself under God's mighty hand, he will lift me up." (1 Peter 5:6)

3. Presuppositionalism: A third approach to defending the faith is one that calls the apologist to move beyond the more surface objections to Christian faith and dig deep to expose the deepest objections that lie on the level of non-Christian faith assumptions or presupposition. At its deepest level this method argues for Christian truth on the basis of the ultimate rationality of the Christian world view (an omniscient and holy God who knows all the facts about everything) and the irrationality of the non-Christian world view (trying to explain non-Christian certainty that Christianity is not true on limited human perception that only knows a tiny amount of all the relevant facts). Presuppositionalism seeks to push the argument past the surface objections to Christian faith ("Bible has errors, science disproves creation, and there are many truths not just one") and to shake the foundations of the non-Christian claims to certainty. We do this by showing two important things:

a. That all non-Christian certainties are irrational given their rejection of biblical theism. Sovereignty of chance makes certainty irrational. If there is no God such as the Bible claims then we live in a universe ruled by ultimate chance. Nothing could be more irrational than a world in which anything can happen (ultimate chance). Even the laws of logic could change tomorrow in such a world. The non-Christian claim for certainty is therefore built on ultimately irrationality. Therefore there is no rational basis for certainty.

13

b. In contrast, that Christian certainties are based on the ultimate rationality of an infinite personal God who knows all things at all times. This alone provides a solid basis for sense perception and rationality in any field. Since God has comprehensive knowledge of all things he alone can be absolutely certain of anything. When I give up being an independent thinker (basing my science, reason and certainty on faith in ultimate irrationality) and become a dependent thinker (basing my reason, science and certainty on the basis of faith in ultimate rationality). Note that both the Christian and the non-Christian have faith foundations for their views but only the Christian has rational faith foundation. This provides a very big advantage in the apologetic conversation.

But let me pause at this point. I've dumped a lot of information on you and want to get your feedback before I talk about how to use these three approaches in combination to produce a persuasive apologetic. I hope your studies are going well. Please greet the patron of the CU. He is an old friend of mine. Sincerely in Christ, Mary Dear Mary, Thanks for the good overview of the different approaches. I knew a lot about the first two but very little about the last one. I'm still not sure I understand what presuppositionalism is and how it works but I am curious to know more. But before we continue I do have a few questions. I'm struggling with the whole question of the relevance of apologetics. In my history class, the lecturer talks about a post colonial and post modern approach to truth. Post colonial perspectives demand that we look at issues of power and representation when someone offers an idea or makes a statement. What kind of power play is the speaker trying to pull off? What kind of game is he or she playing? Representation is the issue of who is speaking for whom. Many people try to win an argument by saying they speak for the oppressed or all Africans, or the church or the Bible or reason, etc. We are told that we must challenge the representation game that people play to impose their ideas on others. Post modernism extends the post colonial viewpoint to everyday interaction with the media and with others. In other words, don't trust anyone who says that they are speaking the truth and that you should believe them. According to post modernism, no one knows the truth. We only have our own individual truths and no one has the right to take those away. As a Christian, I disagree with much of this stuff. God is above our personal perspectives and has the right as our sovereign maker and ruler to command alignment with his viewpoint and will. Post-colonial and post-modern viewpoints would seem to deny God's right to do this. But on the human level it does seem that these new perspectives are

14

making a point. What right do I as another human being have to impose my truth on someone else? A related second question is the whole issue of violence and metanarratives. As I understand it metanarratives are roughly the same as world views or ultimate beliefs about life, the universe and everything. There are a lot of students here who are sensitive about the power plays of metanarratives. After the teaching of Marx and Nietzsche about ideology and the will to power, people are now sensitive to the power games that lie behind ideas and the quest for truth. To a post modern world, truth and ideas are simply means to enslave others. The experience of colonialism has made many African intellectuals ‚post modern‛ in their suspicion of Christianity as an ideology that enslaves rather than liberates. If I try to tell someone the "big story" of the Gospel and say that this is the metanarrative that is absolute truth I may well get a reaction from a student saying that I'm playing a power game and that metanarratives are by definition evil and enslaving. A final question is about the biblical basis for the last approach you mentioned in your email? How do I know people have presuppositions that make chance ultimate and are fundamentally irrational? I'm intrigued by these ideas but I'm not sure where you are getting this biblically. So please tell me more. Yours in grace, Mulandi Dear Mulandi, You are really asking to go into the deep water now! Let me start with your question about the biblical basis of presuppositionalism and then move on to the other ones that you raised. Probably the best place to see the way presuppositions work is to examine Rom 1:18–25. It tells us a lot about the two kinds of ultimate presuppositions that war against one another in the deepest part of our mind and heart. Let me quote these verses: ‚[18] the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. [25] They exchanged the

15

truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.‛ Allow me to make some observations about this important passage. Note first of all in v. 18 that presuppositions are the basic cause of our separation from God. They are the roots of our rebellion. What we may see when we look at someone in rebellion against God are acts of wickedness and godlessness. But Paul seems to be saying that these acts are serving a deeper kind of rebellion in the heart of the fallen person—suppressing the truth about God. This suggests two things: 1) everyone has deep within them the truth about God as creator; 2) everybody hates the God that their deepest presuppositions bears witness to and therefore they behave badly in order to cover up the God that they want to get rid of. People sin outwardly because they have a root sin, God suppression, which is poisoning their intellectual and spiritual well being. Paul will go on in the next few verses to say that every kind of sin from idolatry to sexual immorality flows from the rebellious presuppositions about God and reality that the fallen heart and mind use to get rid of the face of God within. This has important implications for the apologist that we will mention in a moment. The second observation alluded to above is from verses 19–20. Everyone already knows the truth about God as creator. But don't be caught napping when you read these verses. To know God as creator is more than just singing about sunsets and cooing about how beautiful the world is. To say God is creator, let me say that again, defines who I am as a person. If God is the sovereign creator of Gen.1, then here is who he is and who I am: 1) the source of the true story of our world, a story that is universal and therefore a master narrative of reality, the only true master narrative; 2) I am a creature who lives in total dependence on a total provider but who is totally independent of his creation. This is the Creator-creature distinction—we need God but he does not need us or the world for anything. Consider the following areas of his independence and our dependence: existence, knowledge, relationships, power. The only correct way to think then is not independently, beginning with a supposedly neutral reason and then defining reality and God on the basis of what I think. That approach denies the Creator-creature distinction in the realm of knowledge. If I am a creature who owes everything to an all powerful, all knowing God then nothing about me is independent. The only way I can know truth is by thinking dependently-that is, starting with God speaking through Christ by the Spirit in the Scriptures and then reasoning from that true starting point. Anything else is rebellion and God suppression, the very root sins that lead both to God's wrath and our moral misery. My third observation is on the verses 21–23. Here we see what happens to all of us who are in Adam and consequently have rejected the Creator-creature distinction of 18 and 19. One of the first things that breaks when we reject the distinction between God's total self sufficiency in the realm of thinking as in all other realms and my total dependence on God's thoughts to know anything with certainty is our minds. Our minds rather than leading to glad God dependence in the area of reason and knowledge now leads to God

16

suppression, futile thinking, foolish hearts, foolish lives, and idolatry. Fallen thinking is distorted and idolatrous in its tendencies. This unbelief produces rival stories of life to obliterate the witness of creation. Further more the fallen mind loves these false stories and becomes convinced that they are true. They exchange truth for lies and seem to be happy with the transaction (v. 25). What are the implications for apologetics of these three observations from Romans 1:18–25? Here a few that come to mind: 1) non-Christian thought is most vulnerable at the level of presuppositions. When that level is exposed their efforts at God suppression become revealed and their rebellion becomes clear. Most non-Christians will do anything to keep from exposing their deepest presuppositions. The making of idols to suppress the truth about the sovereign God is best done in the dark. 2) But there is a fatal flaw in the fallen mind. They know the truth about God but yet reject it. There is a deep logical breakdown at the root of the non-Christian thinking. They pretend to be rational, logical and scientific on all the other levels of knowing but are deeply irrational, illogical and unscientific at the very foundations of the mind. 3) A third implication of Romans chapter one for the apologist is that every fallen person (including you and me) constructs master narratives (and even post modernism is a master narrative of its own) to bury the Creator-creature distinction. They want to bury this because the guilt and shame that made Adam and Eve hide from God in the garden lies deep within us-their descendants. We can classify the most common of these "burial myths" into three master narrative families:

i. Bury in the mists: a false supernaturalism—obscures God in deism ii. Bury in the ground: a false naturalism—obscures God beneath science iii. Bury in the law: a false moralism and religiosity—obscures God beneath morality

and worship (man’s act of worship becomes the object of worship rather than the true and living God).

Mulandi, one of the most important skills of the apologist is to recognize the particular family of burial myths when you engage in apologetic conversations. It will help you know how best to expose the particular brand of ultimate irrationality and error that lies at the root. But at the same time as we recognize the different kinds of burial myths the non-Christian uses to hide from God we must also remember the common errors and consequences of all burial myths and rebellious master narratives. I will mention five:

1. All non-Christian stories reject the Creator-creature distinction—the foundation of all intellectual error. We are totally dependent on God for everything. Fallenness means we will try to escape that total dependence with religions of partial dependence or ideologies of complete independence. This can be true even of Christianity, not just other religions or ideologies. We have no basis for self

17

righteousness in our apologetics for we have the same God suppression in our hearts. The only difference is that Jesus has called us from the tomb like Lazarus and we are being made human again as creatures that live in total and glad dependence on their creator and sustainer through Christ and by the power of the Spirit of Christ.

2. All non-Christian stories produce a fundamental irrationality. This is what the Bible

calls the darkened mind. This irrationality shows itself in two different ways. First it will assert absolute certainty of their burial myths and the supporting positions for their burial myths. Secondly, if unmasked, the fallen mind will then swing to the other extreme and declare absolute uncertainty— no one can know anything for sure. The rationalism of the enlightenment era thus becomes the relativism of the post modern era. Don't be fooled. Both total certainty and total uncertainty are tricks of God suppression that attempt to deny that God is the one on whom we are totally dependent. Remember, behind the issue of sin is the issue of control. The fallen mind wants to run from God's control because he is the big bad wolf who will devour us in judgment and condemnation. This is what guilt does to corrupt the mind.

3. All non-Christian stories begin with man as hero and God as enemy. Atheism

wants to destroy the enemy by denying him. Islam wants to create a monotheistic idol that is happy with ritualistic obedience rather than total obedience of heart and mind. Man as hero either sees his thinking as independent from the Genesis God whose reality he is suppressing or will only accept religious ideas that allow man a degree of independence to earn their own salvation.

4. All non-Christian stories are at war with the deeper story within, the story of the

Genesis God who is the holy creator to whom they owe total worship but to whom they will give only partial worship or no worship at all. Remember, the foundation of the Christian story (creation and fall) still lies deep within him explaining the habit of certainty. This is crucial for apologetics—our job is to push him back to his buried treasures, to open the tombs and let the truth free. We do this not to destroy the non-Christians but to set them free. We must also remember that we can easily turn Christianity into a form of God suppression through moralizing and religiosity. This must make us meek and not self righteous when we challenge the presupposition of the non-Christian.

5. All non-Christian stories therefore are vulnerable to the Christian story. One way

to push the non-Christian back onto their contradictory presuppositions (the world does make sense because an infinitely rational and personal God made all things and communicates that meaning to us through general and special revelation. The world does not make sense except for whatever sense I give to it because there is no God like the Bible says) is to exploit the habit of certainty. If there is no God who made all things and has comprehensive knowledge of all things then how can

18

we as humans be certain of anything let alone the question of whether God exists or whether he has revealed himself in Jesus and in the scriptures. But fallen people like us merely practise the habit of certainty without even thinking about it. People not only have opinions, they have convictions. These are things about which they are certain. But certainty in any ultimate sense requires comprehensive knowledge of something and as creatures we only have limited knowledge. Where then does this habit of certainty come from? The biblical answer is that this is the image of God within. Because we are dependent thinkers made to depend on God's comprehensive knowledge in all things, we practise certainty without thinking. Don't miss the big idea here: the stronger the certainty of the non-Christian that Christianity is false because of irrationality then the stronger our opportunity to expose the fatal flaw of non-Christian thinking—the denial of the Creator-creature distinction which removes any rational ground for certainty in any field but gives indirect testimony that the biblical story of creation is true.

A fourth implication of Romans chapter one is the power of the Christian story itself to shake the foundations of the non-Christian. A metanarrative is ‚an overarching story that incorporates and explains all other stories within its own meaning‛ (Chang, Engaging Unbelief). Our metanarrative is the biblical Gospel of an almighty creator, a good and meaningful creation, a tragic fall that has misdirected all things including religion, a powerful redemption through Christ and his cross and a coming consummation in which all things will be made new. Within this metanarrative there is the key to unlocking the mystery of the two habits of intellectual and moral certainty—the image of the God of this story is shining through. Each human holds within himself the telltale fingerprints that show the truth of the Christian story and unmasks the rival narratives that were created only to bury the true metanarrative of the Bible. We need to resolve the tragic tension of the non-Christian story by a proper telling of the Christian story in a way that resolves the tension. This story is the greatest resource the apologist has because it is the greatest possible story imaginable. We should bring this story into our conversation by way of personal testimony or scriptural reference whenever appropriate. Once again Mulandi, I confess I've dumped a lot on you. I hope you see by looking at Romans chapter one and exploring the biblical basis of presuppositionalism that you can see the implications for your other questions about post modernism and master narratives. The Jesus master narrative can be abused by Christians and turned into a power game but when its real power is realized, it is a power that liberates and not enslaves. To return to the Father is not the contradiction of my freedom. That would be how a prodigal thinks. The return to the Father becomes the very condition of my freedom. We insist on the Jesus story as the master narrative for all, not because we want to enslave, but because people are currently enslaved in their burial myths and need to know the joy and freedom that comes from believing the real homecoming story of a Father who gave them life once and in whose house life can be found once again. Sincerely in Christ,

19

Mary Dear Mary, Wow. I'm really overwhelmed. Your discussion of Romans chapter one blew me away in two different ways. First, I had never seen it that way before. Second, I am so over my head, I think I might be drowning in too much theology. While I am processing all that you have said about presuppositionalism I have two practical questions. 1) is there no place for evidences in apologetics? Is presuppositionalism the only way to do it? 2) Can you simplify all that you have said into a few practical guidelines that will actually help me when I am talking to a non-Christian? I can't possibly remember everything you have said on the basis of Romans chapter one. HELP!!!!! A confused Mulandi Dear Mulandi, I feel your pain! Presuppositions are some of the most profound things to discuss either theologically or philosophically. No wonder your head is spinning! But there is good news. The practise of Apologetics can sometimes be easier than the theory. I'd like to outline a simple ABC method for carrying on a persuasive apologetic conversation with a non-Christian. The ABC method is as follows: 1. A is for answering honest questions with honest answers. This is where we use evidences. If our friends say that all the history in the Bible is false we can say that there is a different perspective on this and that there are many authoritative books on Bible archaeology that seem to support the Bible's historical accuracy. That is A. But don't forget to listen, listen, and listen some more. Hear the person well before speaking. Ask clarifying questions to make sure you understand not only the main thrust of the objection to faith but even some of the finer points. Only after accurate and patient listening have we earned a right to speak. Listening also helps us get a sense of which of the three families of burial myths the non-Christian may be using for their God suppression. We are not trying to win the argument or the person at this point but rather to create enough doubt regarding this first level of God suppression so that we can move on to the second stage. 2. B is for Behaving like a Christian. Self-righteous, know-it-all Christians will just turn the person away. We need to say that we don't know it all, neither do we have all the answers nor are we better than the non-Christians but we in fact may be dumber, lazier,

20

more sinful, less learned, etc than the person we are talking to. We need to admit that Christians and Christianity have often been on the wrong side of key moral and political questions and that we are not defending Christian denominations, persons or institutions or traditions. Christianity is Jesus Christ. He is the source of truth and wisdom. We do not preach ourselves but Jesus. For post modern types, this will help them listen to you with some relief that you are not playing a power game. Let us remember 2 Cor.12:9–10 and be happy to boast of our weaknesses. By no means are we to get defensive, offended, angry, insulting, or sarcastic about non-Christian views, persons or religion. Insults do not win arguments or people. Remember also 2 Cor.10; the weapons we use are not worldly. 3. C is for capturing every thought. This is the payoff. Here is where we storm the dungeons, lay bare the deepest presuppositions and work with God to set men free. How do we argue by presupposition without making people defensive or angry? This is where I use the silly questions approach which Wangari illustrated. Here is also the point where I might give my testimony (after exposing their presuppositions) and maybe even some scripture. This is the goal of our conversation—to get to the foundations of the non-Christian’s thinking and to expose the fatal flaw that lies buried there—trying to build sound faith or rationality on the basis of ultimate irrationality or God-suppression, both of which are expressions of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction. That denial undermines what it means to be human and distorts every aspect of human thought. I believe the conversation you had with Wangari illustrates this method pretty clearly. Why don't you buy her some chai and review that conversation. Maybe some of the ideas and practises that we have talked about in our emails will make more sense. Blessings on you, Mulandi, as you embark on this great quest to bring people to the saviour through persuasive speech and behaviour. With the Spirit's help it might just be as easy ABC! Sincerely in Christ, Mary

For discussion and application

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the three approaches to apologetics mentioned by Mary?

2. How does presuppositionalism differ from evidentialism and fideism? 3. What does Mary mean by dependent thinking vs. independent thinking?

21

4. How does Mary seek to shake the foundations of the non-Christian’s position? 5. How does the habit of certainty offer a clue to how to argue for the faith? 6. Mulandi brings up the issue of post colonialism and post modernism. Without going

into the details of these views they both share a concern with the way we abuse ideas and use them as ways to manipulate or even suppress others. Have you seen this happen in Christian circles? How can we avoid making apologetics a power play in which we are simply trying to impose our will or beliefs on someone else? How can we do apologetics out of weakness rather than out of strength? What does Paul mean in 2 Cor.12:9–10 when he says that he boasts in his weakness? Does this shed any light on the way in which an apologist with a Jesus master narrative should conduct a conversation?

7. What are the three parts of a Christian apologist’s argument and why is each step

important? 8. Review the end of Wangari’s dialogue and note how she uses the ‚silly questions‛?

Why does she call them that way? Why use the silly questions at all? Don't they weaken our argument? How effective are these questions in opening up another person to hear the Gospel?

9. Review the dialogue between Wangari and Mulandi. How well did she use the

principles and methods advocated by Mary? Where was she weakest? Where strongest? How does she transition from A to B to C?

10. Can you think of a friend that has some intellectual barrier standing between him or

her and Jesus? Buy your friend some chai this week and have an ABC conversation with that person.

22

chapter 3

CHALLENGE 1: Your Bible is not true One of the first attacks on Wangari’s faith came from two other students with whom she had lunch one day. One student, Theo, described himself as a ‚post-modern agnostic.‛ Wangari wasn’t sure what that meant. The other student, Ahmad, was a Muslim. Wangari told them both about her Christian commitment and then began sharing some Scripture passages with them.

"Hold on, Wangari," Theo had said. "I'm happy that you have something to believe in but don't expect me to believe your Bible. Your Bible is just not true. Its history is unreliable. Its ideas are simply the ideas of men just like me. Furthermore it is a text that was written to oppress the masses and win control for a ruling elite. I reject all totalising ideologies and all metanarratives. Since there is no absolute truth, your Bible does not speak with any more authority than the writings of Nelson Mandela or Karl Marx." He was amiable when he said this but Wangari was shaken by the strength of his conviction that the Bible was not, could not and should not be considered an absolute word from God. Ahmad also chimed in that the Quran is the true word of God.

‚The Bible of the Christians is full of errors proving it was corrupted,‛ said Ahmad. He gave a number of examples of factual errors in the Bible. Wangari was stunned into silence. She didn't really know how to respond to Ahmad’s attacks or answer his examples. She wasn’t sure what Theo meant by "totalising ideologies" and "metanarratives" but she got the point very clearly that for both of them and probably thousands of other thinking people at the university the Bible was simply just not true.

APOLOGETIC: The story of Theo

When Wangari returned to University after the Christmas holidays one of the first people she met was the upper classman, Theo and his friend, Ahmad, who both had told her in no uncertain terms that the Bible was not the word of God. The three of them had a Coke together and picked up the conversation where they had left off: Wangari: Let me thank you for your challenging comments about the Bible. It really made

me think. Theo: My pleasure. One of my tasks on campus is to help damsels in distress, especially

those who are in intellectual distress from the fairy tales they were taught in Sunday school.

Wangari: I know what you mean about fairy tales. One thing I learned over Christmas vacation is that fairy tales can be very dangerous.

Theo: Do you mean you have given up your Christian faith? Wangari: Not at all. I have never felt stronger in my faith than I do now.

23

Theo: Then you were not listening to me last term when I told you very clearly that the Bible cannot be the word of God.

Ahmad: I agree with Theo. From a Muslim perspective, the Bible cannot be the word of God.

Wangari: I would like to understand why you both believe what you believe. Would you please tell me again your reasons for not accepting the Scriptures?

Theo: I repeat: Your Bible is just not true. Its history is unreliable. Its ideas are simply the ideas of men just like me. Furthermore it is a text that was written to oppress the masses and win control for a ruling elite. I reject all totalising ideologies and all metanarratives. Since there is no absolute truth, your Bible does not speak with any more authority than the writings of Nelson Mandela or Karl Marx. So what do you think of that, sweet damsel?

Ahmad: For me, the Bible cannot be the word of God because it disagrees with the Quran on things like the Trinity, the death of Jesus on the cross and the like. The Bible came first and the reason it disagrees with the Quran is because Christians changed the content of the Bible.

Wangari: May I ask a question of each of you about these ‚facts‛ that disprove the Bible’s accuracy?

Theo & Albert: Sure. Wangari: Is it possible that there is more than one way to look at these ‚facts‛ about the

Bible’s accuracy? Theo: What do you mean? Wangari: Well, simply this. Take a book like Professor Gleason Archer's Encyclopaedia of

Bible Difficulties (Zondervan: 1982). It is one of the most thorough examinations of all the supposed errors in the Bible, but he shows that it is possible to harmonize all of these problems in a way that upholds the authority of the Bible.

Ahmad: I don’t know this book, but it sounds like a Christian book that will say anything to show that the Bible is true.

Wangari: That may be the case but it may not be either. I’d be happy to study this book with the two of you if you wanted to settle this question of errors in the Bible once and for all.

Theo: Don’t have time; Plus my mind is already made up. Ahmad: I would like to look at it sometime but not this term. I’m really stressed. Wangari: No problem but don’t miss the point. Theo: What point? That Christians never listen to reason? Wangari: Not exactly. The point that those who claim there is only one way to look at the

facts may be have a difficult time defending their position. In every field and on every level there are honest differences in the way people interpret the facts. One example is anthropology. For years many anthropologists taught that modern humans are the product of a long line of hominids including Neanderthal man. Have you heard that theory?

Ahmad: Yes, of course.

24

Wangari: But DNA research has proven that modern humans did not come from Neanderthal man because they have completely different DNA structures. In fact the ‚Out of Africa‛ theory which is increasing in popularity among scientists actually theorises that all modern humans were born from one African mother who lived a 150,000 years ago or so, on the basis of certain DNA information.

Theo: Are you suggesting that this new theory proves that the Bible is historically or scientifically true?

Wangari: No, I’m not. I am pointing out though, that there often are several honest and rational interpretations of the facts, whether it is of the origin of humanity or the accuracy of the Bible. I don’t think it is rational to say there is only one way to view this question rationally. I think there are many ways to view the Bible partly because our facts are limited and partly because our reason is limited. Would you agree with me that we may both be rational but not agree on the accuracy of the Bible?

Ahmad: I suppose so. But doesn’t that mean we have reached the end of our discussion. You have your interpretation of the facts and I have mine.

Wangari: Not exactly. I would like to make an apology before we end this conversation. May I?

Theo: Are you apologising for believing in the Bible? Wangari: No, I am apologising for the way I and others have defended the Bible and

treated those who disagree. Theo, your words about the way people use the Bible to oppress and defend the interests of the ruling elite really convicted me. In history we see that sometimes the church was so drunk on power and keeping a monopoly of religion that they persecuted people who criticised the Bible, or even tried to translate the Bible into their own language. I can understand why some people may not like the Bible today, because Christians have sometimes been arrogant and even abusive to those who seemed to threaten their faith in the Bible. I have done this myself, and I confess to you that this was wrong. If I have been arrogant or abusive in this conversation as well, I would like to apologize because is not the attitude of Christ, the one I serve and represent. Please accept my apology. I will be making some more arguments in favour of the Bible in just a moment but I want you to know that I don’t mean any disrespect. I invite you to correct me if I act inconsistently with the example of Christ. I just want to make a distinction between the way Christians have sometimes abused the Bible and the way Christ intended for the Bible to be used.

Theo & Ahmad: Sure, but we still don’t believe in the Bible. Wangari: No problem. Over these last few weeks I think I finally figured out why you are

attacking the Bible. Theo: Why? Wangari: Last term I found your attacks on the Bible alarming and unsettling. Now I find

them simply amazing. Theo: Why amazing?

25

Wangari: Let me start with Theo. I am amazed at how certain you are. I am particularly amazed at your absolute certainty because you have no reliable foundation for such a statement.

Theo: I certainly do. Historical Criticism of the Bible has shown that it is merely a book like other books, riddled with the same errors that other books have. Historical Criticism is a science and as a science its results are completely reliable.

Wangari: So, you have become one of those scientific historical critics of the Bible! Are you certain that your position is absolutely certain?

Theo: That's right. In contrast, you as the Christian are completely vulnerable because your position is not based on the solid results of science but a religious faith that cannot stand up to the facts.

Wangari: Thank you for pointing out my religious faith. You are quite correct to say that I believe the Bible to be the word of God because of its own claims to that effect.

Theo: Aha! Circular reasoning! You assume the truth of the Bible and then use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. That's against the rules, sister—the rules of reason that is.

Wangari: You don't like my circle? Too narrow? I was just thinking about how strong your religious faith is.

Theo: My religious faith?! I believe in reason, not God. I have no religion. Wangari: Spoken like a true believer. Theo, from where I sit your strong certainty that the

Bible is not the word of God is not a rational statement at all, but rather a strong statement of your faith.

Theo: That's ridiculous. Wangari: Maybe, but I have more ridiculous questions to ask? May I ask you a few? Theo: I suppose so, but I won’t answer them if they are too dumb! Wangari: No problem. Here is my first silly question. I realize someone can't be an expert

on everything but out of all the studies of Historical Criticism of the Bible that there are (and the bibliography of just one book I looked at on the subject contained over 200 separate items) how many would you say you have read and studied? 200? 150? 50? 5?

Theo: Maybe 5. Wangari: Okay. Thanks for answering that question. I’ve got another ridiculous one: Isn't it

possible that in the other 195 studies that you admit that you have not read there could be overwhelming evidence showing the historical reliability of the Bible?

Theo: Maybe, but I doubt it. Wangari: So you admit the possibility that the Bible could be the reliable word of God, if

the weight of the rest of the 195 books and articles that you have not read supported that conclusion?

Theo: I suppose so, but what are you driving at? Wangari: Just that your strong statement that the Bible is not the word of God seems to

be a bit too dogmatic for someone who admits that he knows less than 5% of the information on the subject. I have to conclude that your certainty comes not from a rational grasp of the facts, but from a faith commitment that the Bible is not true.

26

Nothing else explains your certainty. After all dogmatic statements, even from relativists, sure sound like statements of faith.

Theo: You are the one with faith, not me. Besides you haven't read any more on the subject of Historical Criticism than I have, so you're no better off than me. Maybe the 200 books and articles prove the Bible is just a pile of contradictions.

Wangari: You are right in saying that I am basing my position on faith, but you are not quite right when you say that because I haven't read all the books on Historical Criticism I can't know for sure that the Bible is the word of God.

Theo: What do you mean? What's true for me has got to be true for you. Wangari: That's just the point, Theo. As a Christian I have a very different approach to

truth and biblical authority than a non-Christian. When I became a Christian I put my faith in Jesus Christ. By his grace and help I was given the gift of faith to believe in him. As I read about him in the Bible I found out that he believed the Bible was the word of God, and so out of loyalty to him I too accepted the Bible as the word of God. One of the wonderful benefits of beginning with this faith foundation is that I have a firm foundation for certainty in any field now.

Theo: How can that be? It sounds to me like you committed intellectual suicide Wangari: If I accepted your non-Christian story of life I would agree with you, but what I

am saying to you is that I have found a new life story in Christ. Part of this story of Christ is that he is the God of Genesis, the almighty creator of all things, who has become man in order to save us from sin and death.

Theo: I've heard this all before. Wangari: Just wait. I'm coming to a part that I'm sure you haven't heard. Can you let me

explain? Theo: Only if you buy me another Coke. Wangari: Sure. [she orders another Coke for Theo and Ahmad] My God is without limits,

so he knows all things exhaustively. He knows 100% of all the facts and evidence and science that exists. When he speaks, because he knows everything certainly, in his word limited creatures like you and I can have absolutely certain knowledge about those things upon which he has spoken. God knows everything certainly and has communicated to me through his word, so I can have certain knowledge. My reasoning is dependent reasoning. Not so for the non-Christian who can only ever know a fraction of all reality yet makes dogmatic statements about God, reality and the Bible. Non-Christian reasoning is independent. It refuses to begin with the Christian story and its view of truth, and begins with another story in which man is the hero and exercises independent reasoning—that is reasoning that is independent from God. It begins with a faith assumption that the God of the Bible either has not spoken or is not there. I'd call that a very strong faith assumption. But the non-Christian pays a high price for beginning with a non-Christian story about God and reality. He begins with his limited mind, so he cannot know anything for sure because there is always the possibility that the 99% of reality that he doesn't know contains information that contradicts his reasoning. From the Christian perspective it is the non-Christian that has

27

committed intellectual suicide for choosing to put his faith and build his reason on a non-Christian story of reality.

Theo: I still think you are guilty of circular reasoning in which your conclusion is contained in your presuppositions. You believe that Bible is the word of God because you believe the Bible is the word of God. That's a tautology, and it’s nonsense.

Wangari: Two points. One: All thinking is circular. You conclude that the Bible is not the word of God because you begin with a non-Christian story of reality in which the Bible is not the word of God. Secondly: My circle is a bit broader than you have drawn. And it’s more like a syllogism than a circle: It goes like this: I begin by believing the truth of the Christian story because I have believed that Christ is the Lord and Saviour. Christ as my Lord believes the Bible is the word of God, therefore I believe, out of complete dependence on my Lord that the Bible is the word of God. Further as I use my faith based reasoning, I discover I have a solid foundation for sense perception and rational thought that no non-Christian has. My thinking is not founded on the shifting sands of limited human thinking, and a story of the world in which anything can happen and therefore chance rules everything. My thinking is founded on the Christian story and the Almighty creator who has made everything, knows everything and has communicated reliable truth to me that touches on all of life.

Ahmad: But what about errors in the Bible? The Bible is full of factual errors. Wangari: Remember our agreement that the jury is still out on this question. From my

perspective, this claim has been made often but in fact no non-Christian has been able to make that claim stick, precisely because the faith stories or presuppositions that control our thinking are really the deciding factor in what is an "error" and what is not. I will not reach that conclusion because I am totally dependent in my thinking upon God as he is revealed in Christ. You are unlikely to reach the conclusion that the Bible is free from error for you are totally dependent on your non-Christian story in which the Bible is not the reliable word of God and in which no such God, as the Bible teaches, exists. Ahmad, you have to believe the Bible has been changed and is full of errors, because you believe in the book that was written 600 years after the Bible and which disagrees with it at key points. Your faith story requires you to question the Bible.

Ahmad: But aren’t you dodging the question that the Bible is full of errors? Wangari: I’m not dodging the question; I’m trying to get at the real question. Tell me

honestly, if I answered every objection you had about the factual accuracy of the Bible would you renounce your faith in Allah and become a born-again baptised Christian?

Ahmad: No, never. Wangari: Then aren’t you admitting that the real question is not the Bible but the faith

commitments that each of us has made in our respective religions? You have to believe the Bible is in error because your presuppositions require you to do so. It’s either the truth of the Quran or the truth of Bible. I understand why you do it. There however, is a price that you must pay for dismissing the Bible. The Bible

28

differs with Islam not only in details, but in the great theme of salvation. While you must work for an uncertain salvation, the Christian can know for sure that God is their loving father, who has forgiven all their sins by entering human history, dying for our sins, giving us the gift of a perfect righteousness from Jesus, and whose unconditional love assures them of eternal life forever more. Do you have those kinds of assurances of God’s love in your personal faith?

Ahmad: I still think your Bible is not true. Wangari: That’s okay. But I hope now you understand that it is of faith, and not facts, that

really separate us. Once we realize that we have already given our hearts away and that our hearts control our heads, we can start talking about meaningful things, such as why we have fallen in love with the faith stories of secularism or Islam. Personal reasons for faith are far more interesting to talk about than simply why your facts are bigger than my facts.

Theo: I think I see at least one of your points. Your Christian story controls your thinking and my non-Christian thinking controls mine. Ahmad’s faith in the Quran controls his. Our specific objections to the Bible flow from our precommitments to a faith story, as you put it. And you think that we should talk about the real reasons why we have put our faith in these particular stories of reality rather than butt heads about Bible errors.

Wangari: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Ahmad: It is a little clearer to me as well. I have my faith and you have yours and we

cannot prove the superiority of one over the other by reason because faith controls our reason. Reason is faith-based and serves its master. Aren’t we at a stalemate, then? We each have our faith commitments and nobody’s going to budge.

Wangari: Not exactly, because I was once like each of you—controlled by non-Christian versions of the story of reality. We put our faith in secularism or a world religion for personal reasons. We gravitate to faith because we cannot live without answers to the great questions of why we are here and how we can find meaning and happiness in this life and what will happen when we die. Faith stories give answers to these questions but they don’t give the same answers. I’d like to give you gentleman a real choice in your thinking. The Christian story is a completely different way of look at oneself and life than is the secular story of Theo or the Muslim story of Ahmad. And you owe it to yourself to be aware of those differences. May I tell you how my thinking was revolutionised by the Christian story and how yours could be as well? But be forewarned—as a friend of mine told me recently—"fairy tales" can cause intellectual distress. [she shares her testimony about the Gospel and its saving impact in her life]

For discussion and application

1. Evaluate Wangari's overall effectiveness in meeting the challenge about the Bible. What points were her strongest? Which were her weakest?

29

2. How does she employ the ABC method? Can you spot her transitions through the

three steps?

3. How does she use evidences to defend the Bible?

4. How does she use the example of Christ to defend the Bible?

5. How does she answer the charge of intellectual suicide for starting with God's revelation? How does she answer the charge of circular reasoning?

6. How does she answer Ahmad’s objection to the reliability of the Bible?

7. Is Wangari consistent in her attempt to be a dependent thinking basing everything on the Christian story as found in the Bible? Should she have used proof texts from the Bible in her defence of biblical authority? Should she have used more evidence from history and science?

APOLOGETIC: Emails between Mary and Wangari on defending the Bible

Dear Mary, Enclosed is the transcript of my conversation with Theo and Ahmad as best as I can remember it. I wanted to tell you about it and what I think worked best in the method you taught me. I really pressed both Theo and Ahmad on the point their objections were not all that rational, but faith based. I tried to show them that their objections to the Christian story arise from their faith in rival stories. I tried to expose the true roots of Theo's objections to the Bible, particularly. He thought, at least at the beginning, that his view was objective and neutral. By the end he admitted to at least some of his deep faith presuppositions and acknowledged that they might in fact be rooted in a very different story of reality. Theo’s story begins by denying the Creator-creature distinction (there is no creator like the Bible claims) and from there is forced to assume that only the natural world can be true. There is simply no place in Theo’s narrow view of reality for a God as big as the Bible claims, and a God who can talk and communicate truth in a book like the Bible. Theo’s problem with the Bible is really a problem with Theo's story which cannot permit the Christian view to be true.

30

I wanted to get into the history of Historical Criticism of the Bible with him but didn’t have the time. He and to a lesser degree, Ahmad, both believe that the ‚science‛ of Historical Criticism gives them a solid foundation for rejecting the Bible. Thanks to you, Mary, I have learned to question all claims to objectivity. And sure enough, on further investigation, Historical Criticism is not ‚value free‛. Though biblical criticism has existed for 2000 years dating from Celsus in the late 2nd Century, the real father of modern Historical Criticism of the Bible is F. C. Baur and his Tübingen School (which included David Strauss). Horton Harris's important study The Tübingen School (1975) makes it clear that Baur's ‚science‛ was shaped by his faith commitment to a non-Christian story. His conclusions were already predetermined by his presuppositions. Baur wanted to write "pure history", by which he meant history that denies the possibility of the supernatural. ‚With a miracle all explanation and understanding ceases, and where the beginning is not explained or understood, no continuing development which proceeds from the beginning is possible; there can be no development at all and no historical continuity‛ (Harris 1975, 251-2). As Harris comments: ‚This statement of Baur's means that even if there were a God who had created the world, this God would be unable to break into history; he would be locked out of his world.‛ What Harris is implying is that Baur begins with such a completely mechanistic and naturalistic view of the world that he is positively threatened by the idea of an all powerful transcendent God intervening into history. Thus Harris must conclude: ‚This, in fact, was the one presupposition which determined the whole of Baur's historical investigation and also that of the Tübingen School‛ (Harris 1975, 252). Biblical criticism today is still controlled by this non-Christian story—that functionally, God is dead, the supernatural is fictitious and both must now be excluded from the serious study of the Bible. God is buried in the mist in some deistic burial myth or buried in the ground by a reductionistic naturalism. Anyway, I wanted you to know that I felt good about this first attempt to apply the ABC method. One thing that Theo mentioned that caught me a little by surprise was his claim about intellectual suicide for beginning with faith in the Bible. He went on to accuse me of circular reasoning. I think I was able to get beyond these criticisms okay, but wanted your thoughts on how to understand something like circular reasoning. Thanks, Wangari Dear Wangari, Theo's comment about your ‚intellectual suicide‛ is full of irony. I say this because only the Christian story can provide a solid foundation for reason. I agree with how you brought out the irony when you said to Theo: ‚God knows everything certainly and has communicated to me through his word, so I can have certain knowledge. My reasoning is dependent reasoning. Not so for the non-Christian who can only ever know a fraction of all reality yet makes dogmatic statements about God, reality and the Bible. Non-Christian

31

reasoning is independent. It refuses to begin with the Christian story and its view of truth, and begins with another story in which man is the hero and exercises independent reasoning—that is reasoning that is independent from God. It begins with a faith assumption that the God of the Bible either has not spoken or is not there. I'd call that a very strong faith assumption. But the non-Christian pays a high price for beginning with a non-Christian story about God and reality. He begins with his limited mind, so he cannot know anything for sure because there is always the possibility that the 99% of reality that he doesn't know contains information that contradicts his reasoning. From the Christian perspective it is the non-Christian that has committed intellectual suicide for choosing to put his faith and build his reason on a non-Christian story of reality. Your starting point is the Creator creature distinction, which is denied in various degrees by all non-Christian thought. It is a deeply rational starting point that explains our habit of certainty and how the world works. Let me comment on the charge of circular reasoning. Theo's criticism of your thinking as circular reasoning is philosophically naïve—all reasoning is ultimately circular. There however, is a big difference between vicious circles and strong circles. Theo claims that your reasoning is circular because the conclusion bears too obvious a dependence on the premise. Your response was a good one: that all thinking is circular in that presuppositions tend to form stories of reality (worldviews) that become a filter through which we strain reality. Our premises thereby predetermine our conclusions. But you could have said a little more. The Christian response to this charge of circular reasoning is that (1) there is a difference between a narrow circularity and a broad circularity, and we should avoid the first and accept only the second; (2) the quality of one's thinking is therefore largely (but not exclusively) determined by the quality of one's presuppositions (or God stories). You are therefore right to uphold the Christian story as the highest quality foundation for reasoning. Let me also point out that Theo's one possible way of escape from his baseless absolute certainty (which he admitted near the end of the dialogue) was to retreat into total uncertainty. He could simply have said that no one can know anything for sure about the truth of the Bible. This absolute scepticism or agnosticism would have prolonged the conversation, but would have been equally futile. Let’s suppose that Theo did retreat from your strong attack on his absolute certainty by claiming total uncertainty. This could have come in one of two guises: First there is the claim that nobody can no for sure that the Bible is the word of God, that there is not enough evidence that is known by limited human beings to determine such a question. The Christian response is that once again the non-Christian is claiming absolute certainty, only this time he or she is absolutely certain that one cannot know for sure whether the Bible is the word of God. On non-Christian foundations, with its denial of the Genesis God and his story, there is no foundation for absolute certainty in uncertainty.

32

Secondly, Theo could claim that truth is so relative that each person's ultimate truth is only true for them. He stated this point early in the dialogue: ‚Furthermore it is a text that was written to oppress the masses and win control for a ruling elite. I reject all totalising ideologies and all metanarratives. Since there is no absolute truth, your Bible does not speak with any more authority than the writings of Nelson Mandela or Karl Marx.‛ Once again, the independent God-denying nature of his presuppositions shows itself in his claim to be absolutely certain that all truth is relative. Isn't it possible in the 99% of reality that he does not know there could be overwhelming evidence that there is one absolute truth and that relativism is wrong? His total uncertainty about absolute truth betrays his faith in a non-Christian story that begins its thinking ruling the Genesis God and his story out of the world of rational ideas. I hope this helps. Regards, Mary Dear Mary, Yes, thanks. Your words helped a lot. I have a better grasp of what circular reasoning is and how to respond in the future. Thanks also for the warning about absolute uncertainty. I haven’t really seen this yet but I’ll keep my eyes open. May I ask you about Ahmad? His case is slightly different than Theo’s, for his authority for truth is tradition. He simply believes whatever he is told by Muslim authorities. I don’t know much about the Muslim traditional attack on the Bible. Could you shed more light on that, please? I would like to be able to give more evidences to create doubt about his position. Gratefully, Wangari Dear Wangari, You asked, ‚There are good reasons to doubt the tradition that the Bible has changed but that the Quran has not.‛ What the Muslim means when he says that the Bible has changed is that the Tawraat (Torah=OT) and Injil (Good News=NT) that are spoken of so highly in the Quran (Surah 5:7 ‚You have no ground to stand on unless you stand fast by the Tawraat and Injil‛) have disappeared and that both the Jewish and Christian scriptures today are distortions of these original scriptures. There is, of course, no shred of evidence for these things. In fact it is clear from the 4th century texts of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) and the massoretic text of the Old Testament both of which were established before the time of Muhammed that the Bible encountered by Muhammed is the same as the Bible we have today. No known copies of a supposedly pure OT or NT have ever been found. To argue that they have been lost is to overlook the

33

fact that we have copies of the true OT and NT that predate Islam. They are simply wrong. Consider also that the Quran has changed dramatically. The third Caliph, Uthman, selected the Zaid version of the Quran as the standard version. The Zaid Text of the Quran was based on one of many different versions of the Quran at the time. Uthman burned all other versions. The greatest authority of the Quran was Abdullah Ibn Mus’ad, for he is named first by Muhammed in the list of four great authorities on his teaching. After Uthman standardized the text of the Quran, Abdullah complained that his version of the Quran was more complete and accurate than the Zaid text and is quoted as saying that those who read the new version of Zaid are guilty of deceit. Is it not possible that in those burned texts numerous verses were lost, and perhaps whole chapters, of the Quran? Are these not dramatic changes from the original oral version of Islam? But deeper than these facts is the Bible’s own testimony that Ahmad knows in his heart of hearts that the God of the Bible is the true and living God, that Islam for all of its beauty and nobility is but an expression of God suppression, and the law-giver God, Allah, is but an idol that relieves the Muslim of the need to keep the perfect law of love. A few large religious acts make up the law of the Muslim. They are a far cry from the great commandment of Jesus. By belittling sin and its consequences they set themselves up for a salvation by works. You zeroed in on this God suppression when you spoke of the gift of righteousness through Christ. Islam knows no such gift, even in its mystical tradition. Ahmad, made in the image of God, has the habit of moral certitude that compels him to want to know for sure that he will be saved. Only biblically based Christian faith answers that deep need in the human heart. Sincerely, Mary Dear Mary, Thanks for the information on dealing with Muslim objections to the Bible. Could you help me with one more issue? I believe, thanks to you, that both Ahmad’s and Theo's faith that the Bible is full of errors is a faith position that lacks supporting evidence and proper foundations. I felt I scored some points when I told Theo that the allegation that the Bible is full of errors has never been proved and is a statement that is shaped by presuppositions. I used the book by Archer to create doubt in their absolute positions but what other points might I have raised? Thanks, Wangari

34

Dear Wangari, It is always important to point out as you did that those beginning with the truth of the Christian story have a different view of difficult passages than those who don't. The believer uses these difficulties as a way of building his dependent reasoning and correcting wrong interpretations of passages. He practises the art of harmonising scripture rather than disharmonising. Gleason Archer's Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties (1982) was a good reference on your part because it is an example of how the believer answers the charge of so-called errors. James Barr is another example of someone who attacks the accuracy of the Bible from a non-Christian starting point. He accuses Christ of making an historical error in Mark 2:26. He offers this as his best example of an error in Scripture. But how does a dependent thinker respond to such a charge? There are simple and obvious harmonisations. Loyalty to the Gospel story, not Barr's Promethean story, demands the task of harmonisation. His loyalty to his story demands that he finds disharmonies. Dealing with Muslim objections is similar. We recognize copyist errors such as the different numbers of David’s charioteers (700 in 2 Sam. 10:18 but 7000 in 1 Chron. 19:18) and Solomon’s stalls (40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 but 4000 in 2 Chron. 9:25). These do nothing to disprove that the original scriptures (the autographs were without error), or that our modern translations are substantially correct. The points in dispute are trivial and affect no major doctrine. Thus the Muslim claim that the Bible of Muhammad’s day is a corruption is without supporting evidence. One thing I really liked about your defence is that you used dependent reasoning throughout and avoided the temptation to join Theo in his independent reasoning or Ahmad in his. You are correct because only the God of the Bible has absolutely certain knowledge. He is omniscient (Heb. 4:13); omnipotent (Gen. 1:1; 18:14) and omnipresent (Ps.139), therefore he alone in all creation knows everything, at all times, in all places. For this reason he cannot lie (Heb. 6:16–18). He alone is the true foundation for knowledge. This explains why the word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35), and why it is perfect (Ps. 12:6). Thus the words of 2 Tim. 3:17 are true for the Christian defending the faith: the scriptures ‚are the comprehensive equipment of the man of God fitting him fully for every branch of his work‛ (Phillips).

I also like the way you handled step B. You apologized for the oppressive and arrogant ways the church and individual Christians have used the word of God. We have no reason to defend bad Christian behaviour and do well to confess and repent, if necessary, for inconsistent Christianity that stands in contradiction to the message and model provided by Jesus. In closing don’t forget that the commitment of Theo and Ahmad to their non-Christian stories is not a hopeless situation. God's grace can produce true faith in the biblical story. Theo claims at the end that they have reached a stalemate. If reason is itself determined by a prior faith in a deeper story, then it cannot act as the arbiter of truth. Faith confronts

35

faith, and will not budge. Yet you were justified in being more hopeful. You know that beneath faith itself is the content of our respective stories, and that these stories reveal what we have done with God. You also know that faith in the Christian story reveals that we have repented of our rebellious thinking, but that faith in non-Christian stories is an expression of rebellion against the Genesis God. When the non-Christian is confronted with this real choice between the way of repentance and the way of rebellion a deep conversion can take place by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 12:1–2). I would commend real choice thinking as a good way to end your conversation as you try to set up another opportunity to talk. All of these suggestions however, should not obscure the point that I am very proud of you and the grace of God that was operating in and through you. You are indeed growing in your ability to ‚give an answer for the faith that is in you.‛ Sincerely in Christ, Mary

For discussion and application

1. Wangari had additional information about the prejudice that lies at the heart of Historical Criticism of the Bible. How valuable is this information about Bauer, the father of Historical Criticism? Would you have used this in the conversation?

2. Summarize Mary’s response to the charge of ‚intellectual suicide‛ by virtue of ‚circular reasoning.‛ What difference does she draw between vicious and strong circles? Do you agree that all reasoning is circular? How do we make sure we are using strong circles of logic and not vicious ones?

3. What additional info does Mary give that could be used in a conversations with Muslim critics of the Bible?

4. How would you rate the effectiveness of Wangari in dealing with this challenge? What are her strongest points? Her weakest ones? What would you have done differently or additionally?

Reference list

Harris, Horton. 1975. The Tübingen School. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted by

Leicester: Apollos, 1990.

36

Archer, Gleason. 1982. Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan.

37

38

chapter 4

CHALLENGE 2: Your God does not exist Wangari's most surprising challenge to her faith came from her psychology class. For the first few weeks the class was one of her favourites. She found the study of the human psyche fascinating and fun. But things took a negative turn when the professor did a unit on psychology and religion and shared the ideas of Sigmund Freud. The professor explained that Freud saw religion as a human invention explained by the mechanism of wish-fulfilment. "Nobody really wants to die," said the teacher. "So we invent an afterlife to satisfy our deep wish for immortality. Nobody likes to live without meaning and purpose so we invent a Father figure God who will take care of us and lead us to some meaningful end." The professor seemed to agree with Freud that Christianity and its concept of God was merely a psychological crutch that people invented in order to cope with the somber reality that life has no meaning and that death is the only future reality. A better solution for the human predicament, said the professor, was to admit that God does not exist and to get on with the real work of building a better world while we have the chance. Making up fairy tales, he went on to say, is only for children. Coming of age means that we leave our fairy tales behind. Wangari was troubled by these words. Is Christianity an expression of wish-fulfillment and therefore only a psychological illusion?

APOLOGETIC: An ABC conversation on atheism and theism

Wangari shared this issue of wish-fulfillment with Mary. To Wangari's surprise, Mary said that she had also gone through Dr. Mumo's class and had faced the exact same challenge of atheism some years before. Mary told Wangari that she was a friend of Dr Albert Mumo and would use this opportunity to talk with him more about the claims of Christ. She would use the ABC method on him and prayed that God would grant her some favour with her old friend. They met at Java house for coffee. Mary: Albert thanks for meeting me here. It's been a long time. Albert: Too long, Mary. How is your family? Mary: Fine thanks. I know your time is valuable so let me mention the reason why I asked

to speak with you. It's about wish-fulfillment. Have your views on this changed at all over the years?

Albert: Some student with too much Sunday school baggage must be complaining about me again! But to answer your question, no, my views have not changed much. Freud's argument seems pretty air tight. Fear of death drives us to wish for a divine father who can somehow control life and death. We want to believe that he

39

exists so that we can cope with fear and despair at our gloomy fate. This is partly the origin of religion.

Mary: You still feel that this makes certain that Christianity and other theistic religions are based on self deception and cannot be true.

Albert: I don't want to offend you, Mary, but yes, that is my position. The logic seems clear to me. Any view that can be explained by wish-fulfillment should not be accepted as true. Religion and the existence of God can be explained on the basis of wish-fulfillment. Therefore, religion and God should not be accepted as true. God is an invention of a fearful psyche.

Mary: You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you. Albert: I would be very surprised to hear that you have given up your faith and become an

atheist. You were such an outspoken Christian when you were on campus. Mary: [laughing] No, I haven't become an atheist. But my Christian faith tells me that

people are afraid and that out of fear they invent all kinds of religions and ideologies to suppress the truth about life.

Albert: That's sounds a lot like Freud! Mary: But there is one big difference between Freud and me. I believe, on the basis of

Christian teaching, the fear people have is not just a vague fear of death but a profound fear of the God of the Bible. This profound fear is because they sense they have betrayed him as their sovereign creator and will have to face the dire consequences of what they invent both religious as well as scientific myths to suppress the unpleasant truth that they are enemies of God and doomed to lose that fight.

Albert: I would hardly call Freud's views a scientific myth. Mary: Actually, I'm just trying to establish the point that there is more than one way to

view Freud's theory of wish-fulfillment. It is a very clever theory but its logic can be used against itself.

Albert: I don't see how that is possible. Mary: Let me mention some logical problems I have with the syllogism you have just

mentioned. Do you mind me picking on my old professor and dear friend? Albert: I'm a big guy. I can take it. Mary: Okay. Here goes: First, there is no logical basis to say that something that is

wished for cannot exist. Yet that is the assumption of Freud's argument. I am not saying that the object of my wishes must always exist. I may wish for peace on earth this Christmas but my wishing cannot make it so. By the same token I may wish for great love to flow between my family and myself. That may indeed happen. Freud dismisses Christian theism on the basis that there is a strong built-in psychological wish mechanism for Christian theism. He is right to say that such a built-in mechanism does not prove the existence of God. But he is most certainly wrong to say that it disproves it. Many things that we wish for in fact do exist and therefore the premise that wish-fulfillment equals something untrue or that should be assumed to be untrue seems counter intuitive to me.

40

Albert: I suppose you have a point but that doesn't mean Freud is wrong, just that there may be a few loopholes in his argument that take a little traction away from his view.

Mary: May I make those loopholes a little larger? Albert: Do I really have a choice? Mary [smiling]: Not really. Albert: Okay. Continue. Mary: Freud labeled as an illusion any belief that had wish-fulfillment as a prominent

factor in its motivation (Freud, 76). He concluded that we should not take illusions seriously as statements of reality because they are motivated by wish-fulfillment. Is it not possible that much of his own belief was motivated by his wish for the triumph of the scientific method, the progress of mankind from the ignorance of the past to a future of rational enlightenment? Such wishes are scarcely disguised in his writings. Yet in a world ultimately ruled by accident and chance such a belief in progress and rationality is surely not a statement of fact but of wish-fulfillment. By his own definition I must regard much of his critique of religion as an illusion since secular wish-fulfillment plays so prominent a factor in its motivation. I have to admit that it is hard for me to take Freud’s argument for atheism seriously because it is so seriously flawed in both its formulation as well as its foundation.

Albert: I see this point. Freud himself may have been motivated by wish-fulfillment and therefore his own criticism of Christianity and theism should not be believed by rational people. But as you pointed out earlier something could be true even if it was the object of wish-fulfillment.

Mary: Exactly. I obviously don't believe that Freud’s argument against theism is sound but I'm willing to say that, there could be several different rational views on this. Theism, even on the basis of Freud’s argument, can still be seen as a rational position and should not be dismissed as a sign that someone is either psychotic, emotionally or intellectually crippled.

Albert: But that is what I personally believe. I believe that religion is a crutch that people who are afraid of a life without meaning and a death without hope use.

Mary: Again let me say that my point thus far is to say that there are other rational viewpoints, given the flaws in Freud's argument that are as valid as your viewpoint. For you to teach in your class that the Freudian critique has somehow decided the question of God’s existence strikes me as unwarranted, rationally speaking. There can be more than one rational perspective on this question. Is that not possible?

Albert: I suppose so but I still believe Freud was right. Mary: I have no problem with that. I need to also tell you a problem I have with my own

Christian faith and that of many other Christians. Albert: Now this I'd like to hear. Mary: Because I believe Christianity to be true, and that this belief is both rationally and

personally satisfying, I often abuse this truth by my arrogance and holier than thou attitude.

41

Albert: Does this mean that you think you are a hypocrite? Mary: No, just a sinner. Knowing God in and through Christ is the greatest gift I've ever

been given but I sometimes treat it like I earned it or deserved it. God has given me this great light. By his light given to me I can see life as he meant it to be. I can see different possibilities on subjects like atheism or Freud's wish-fulfilment theory than the non-Christian because of God's grace working in my life. Yet I can be conceited to think like it is all about me and all about my cleverness or my rationality. I am really a very dependent thinker who needs God for everything including the pursuit of truth. So if I came across as arrogant or spiritually superior back in my college days when I took your class or even today as we discuss our different viewpoints then please forgive me.

Albert: Give yourself a little credit. You were always bright and clever. But you are right that Christian arrogance is offensive. I'll let you know if you misbehave!

Mary: Thanks. Can I ask you another question? Albert: Sure. Mary: How certain are you that Freud’s view of God is the true one? Albert: Pretty sure. I’m as sure as any intellectual can be of a rational argument. Mary: Can I ask you a silly question? If I were to show you overwhelming truth that the

God of the Bible existed would you give up your atheism and become a baptized born-again Christian?

Albert: I can't imagine that happening. I have lived my life on the basis that God does not exist so I can't imagine changing overnight.

Mary: This has been the most interesting thing you have said today. Albert: Why do you say that? Mary: I find it fascinating that you are so certain that Freud is right. Albert: I told you that I have believed this for many years. It has become a habit, I guess,

but one that is based on strong rational grounds. Mary: May I ask you another silly question? Albert [smiling]: Let me brace myself. Mary: Before Freud published his views on wish-fulfillment and the rationality of atheism

what percentage of all the people of the world did he study to determine that their theism rests only on the projection of a father figure?

Albert: That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that you can have scientific knowledge on the basis of a few representative samples.

Mary: I agree but genuine scientific knowledge tries to be very careful about generalizing beyond its sample. To argue from a few cases of neurotic religious belief that all religious belief is neurotic is quite a leap of faith, wouldn't you agree?

Albert: What are you driving at? Mary: Let me put it this way. The world is full of different religions and different views of

God. What percentage of these varied religions did Freud study out of all the religions in the world in order to arrive at the conclusion that all believers have a self created father figure as their God concept?

Albert: I don't know the answer to that. He was a psychiatrist not a scholar of religion

42

Mary: Exactly my point. Since Freud does not know all the possible data that exists how can he claim such certainty on the basis of his atheistic presuppositions? Let me put it another way. Is it not possible that in the vast percentage of facts about believers and religions that you admit Freud was ignorant of there could have been overwhelming evidence that wish-fulfillment theory and the atheistic faith upon which it was based was itself false? Could there not be overwhelming evidence that for most believers other compelling reasons (a real encounter with God or rational decisions based on design, a creation implies a creator) may have motivated such faith on the part of vast numbers of theists?

Albert: It is possible but I still think Freud was right. Mary: I believe you do. And further I think I know why you do. When someone is certain

about something but must admit that their certainty may be contradicted by the overwhelming percentage of facts that the person admits they don't know then we call that kind of certainty faith. Someone believes things by faith not just because they are rational but because they want to believe these things. There is a strong personal commitment involved that goes beyond science, reasoning or facts.

Albert: What are you trying to say? Mary: Just that this dialogue is not a conversation between a believer and an atheist

unbeliever. This conversation is between two believers. Two people who are staking their lives on their faith based convictions. Two people who use reason to support their faith, but who must be honest with themselves that personal and deep psychological and spiritual needs may play the largest role in their positions.

Albert: So we have hit a wall then, if you are right. Let's suppose I agree with you and admit that maybe science and reason are not my only reasons for being an atheist. Maybe I have personal issues with God. Maybe I want to be free of the tyranny and oppression of religion in my life. So what?

Mary: Just this. I once stood where you now stand, doubting God. Not wanting Christianity to be true and seeking a way to bury religion so that it would stop haunting me. Then I encountered the life, teaching and accomplishments of Jesus Christ and he showed me a whole new way to understand my aversion to God and religion and more importantly gave me a cure for this God allergy. Rather than being backed into a corner and forced to conclude that all religion is false or all theism delusional I was given real intellectual freedom, a real choice between traditional ways of being religious and traditional reactions against religion. I made that real choice and I believe if it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone.

Albert: I'm not sure I'm ready for a big change in my life. Mary: I don't know either, Albert, but I do know that I don't regret making that real choice

years ago and receiving the big changes that the choice has brought. May I tell you my story?

43

For discussion and application

1. What is Freud’s argument against the existence of God at least as held by Albert Mumo? How strong an objection do you think this is? Give reasons for your answer.

2. Mary tries to do step A by showing that there are logical problems with Freud’s wish-

fulfillment theory. What are those logical problems? Does she accomplish her intended task in step A, to make room for Christian interpretations of the God question?

3. Step B is taken in the conversation by confronting the problem of Christian self

righteousness. Why is this important to do? What do most non-Christians that you know think about this problem? What does Jesus think about this problem (cf. Luke 18:10ff)?

4. Step C is taken not so much by attacking Albert’s habit of certainty directly but by

attacking Freud’s habit of certainty. How does Mary accomplish this? How effective is she in shaking Albert’s foundations? Why or why not?

APOLOGETIC: Email from Mary to Albert on the Christian view of theism versus wish-fulfillment theory

Dear Albert, Thanks again for having coffee with me the other day. I deeply enjoyed our conversation and have thought much about the power of wishes and wish-fulfillment. In fact the more I have thought about the power of wishes the more wishes have been created in my heart. Seven of those wishes, powerful ones I hope, are for you, my old and dear friend. Some of these wishes may repeat a few things we talked about in our conversation but with you indulgence may I share these wishes with you. I would love to hear back from you whether any of these wishes strike your fancy! Wish 1: I wish my friend would recognize that wishes are universal. Wishing is a human habit not a Christian quirk. The wish of the theist that God exists is no more unique than the wish of the atheist that God does not exist. It is a game everybody plays. Freud's wish was to see reality as centred in man and it is possible to see his theory of wish-fulfillment, (which cannot be proved scientifically as any religious sentiment ever was), as arising from the same psychological dynamics within him that he attributed to others. Everybody wishes that his or her story of reality is true. The habit of wish-

44

fulfillment therefore is a universal one and is as common for the atheist as it is for the theist. Wish 2: I wish my friend would recognize that wishes reveal the god-story in every heart. But the fact that everybody wishes that his or her story of reality is true does not mean that all our wishes are basically the same. Our strongest wishes about reality (whether there is or is not a God) reveal our deepest beliefs about reality. Another way of putting this is that the wish of the atheist or the theist both spring from a certain story about reality that lies deep in the heart. Stories in the heart produce longings of the heart. Longings of the heart express themselves in wishes. If I tell you, in all seriousness, that I am wishing for the return of Thor then you may safely conclude that I have accepted all or most of the story of reality provided by Norse mythology. If I tell you that I am wishing for the progress of man and the triumph of science then you may safely conclude that I have accepted all or most of the promethean story (man as hero) provided by the Enlightenment and Modernity . If I tell you I am wishing for the return of Jesus Christ then you may safely conclude that I have accepted all or most of the Christian story. Our greatest wishes reveal our deepest stories. And even more importantly our deepest stories have to do with God. Our deepest stories have either made him central or they have made him peripheral. They have either treasured him as the lord of all or they have thrown him upon the trash heap of history. But whatever we have done with God in our deepest stories, the consequences are monumental. Philosopher Mortimer Adler reminds us why when he writes that ‚More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.‛ What kind of consequences? ‚The whole tenor of human life is affected by whether men regard themselves as supreme beings in the universe or acknowledge a super-human being whom they conceive of as an object of fear or love, a force to be defied or a Lord to be obeyed.‛ If the whole tenor of human life is affected by what we do with God then the way we view everything, including science and psychology, is radically affected. In other words faith in an atheistic god-story shape one's thinking as profoundly as faith in a theistic one. Wish 3: I wish my friend would see that the ‚wish‛ of Christian theism springs from many evidences. Consider the following testimonies to the existence of the Genesis God:

The sense of God has been found in all cultures and in all ages of history. A phenomenon so universal is best explained by the Christian story of the Genesis God.

The world of nature speaks of a creative intelligence. The wonder of the human eye is better explained by a skillful creator rather than a blind chance.

The wonder and greatness of human beings testifies to the existence of God. Rather than being cosmic accidents, human beings are crafted treasures made in

45

the image of God. Because human beings are personal in a way that nothing else in creation is, they point to a personal creator. Human existence, therefore, points to God's existence.

The word of God, the highest authority, assumes God's existence in Genesis 1:1 as the almighty, infinite and personal creator God thereby refuting atheism, deism, polytheism and pantheism. So certain is the Bible of God's existence that it concludes that only a fool would deny it (Ps. 41:1).

The experience of the Christian is that the reality of God's grace and presence are encountered and enjoyed everyday through Christ.

The testimony of leading scientists and philosophers points to the true and living God. Einstein, Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant and John Locke were all theists.

The universality of human guilt and dread speaks of deep rooted consciousness that man is obligated to a sovereign creator. Even Freud spoke of a death wish which he regarded as universal. Only the biblical story adequately explains the death wish and the moral uneasiness of mankind (Rom. 3:23).

The universal desire for salvation points to the biblical God who alone has provided a gracious and perfect salvation through his son Jesus Christ to satisfy this longing. Atheism and rival religions leave man's destiny up to man and offer little or no hope for help from above (John 14:6).

I could go on. What I want to convey is not only that there are many evidences but that these evidences add up to a wonderful story of life. Because the biblical God lives, He alone can deal with the universal guilt and dread found in all cultures. He can deal with this because of a gracious and perfect salvation provided for all cultures in Christ (John 3:16). So the Christian story is a story of hope for all. This story does not need to be seen as incompatible with science and reason as Einstein and Newton testify. Because this God exists and has spoken there is a basis for certainty in every field. This is good news and it only comes from accepting what the Christian story says about God and interpreting the evidences of nature, reason and history in that light. Wish 4: I wish my friend would recognize that the wish of atheism is a death wish. Note what happens when the above evidences are rejected. A very different story of reality emerges. The philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell was painfully honest about the only story that he found believable on the basis of his atheism: ‚That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labor of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins . . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of

46

unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built‛ (Russell 1957, 107). By beginning with some non-Christian version of the story of reality human beings are led to this bleak and tragic tale of ruined dreams and endless despair. Only when we realize that this story is based on faith presuppositions and not on ‚neutral reason‛ do we realize that mankind does not have to fulfill this death wish but has a real choice regarding the future and what it holds, namely a choice to embrace the Christian story and the God that it enthrones. Wish 5: I wish my friend would recognize that the wish of atheism is rationally flawed. Not only does atheism lead to the bankruptcy of hope, joy and ultimate meaning, it also leads to logical confusion. I’d like to point out three logical flaws in Freud’s argument. First, there is no logical basis to say that something that is wished for cannot exist. Yet that is the assumption of Freud’s argument. I am not saying that the object of my wishes must always exist. I may wish for peace on earth this Christmas but my wishing cannot make it so. By the same token I may wish for great love to flow between my family and myself. That may indeed happen. Freud dismisses Christian theism on the basis that there is a strong built-in psychological wish mechanism for Christian theism. He is right to say that such a built-in mechanism does not prove the existence of God. But he is most certainly wrong to say that it disproves it. Secondly, Freud’s certainty that God is merely a wish-fulfillment is without adequate foundation. True, he admits that it may be true. He must. In a universe in which anything can happen, there certainly could be a God or a Messiah rattling around somewhere just as the Bible claims. Yet he doubts this possibility very much. How odd it would be, he writes, ‚If our poor, ignorant, enslaved ancestors had succeeded in solving all these difficult riddles of the universe . . .‛ (Freud, 78). But ignorance is not the monopoly of our ancestors. Has Freud investigated all the people of the world and found that their theism rests only on the projection of a father figure? Has Freud studied all the religions in the world and concluded that they all have a father figure as their God concept? Since Freud does not know all the possible data that exists he cannot know for sure because in the vast ocean of which he is ignorant there may be (by his own presuppositions about chance creating the world and therefore anything can happen) overwhelming proof that the biblical God exists. Anyone with only a tiny fraction of the evidence has no basis for certainty. And anyone who believes directly or indirectly in chance (anything can happen) has no adequate basis to believe that his understanding of that 1% of the facts that he knows is at all accurate. In a world in which anything can happen his perceptions might as well be absurd. Thirdly, Freud labeled as an illusion any belief that had wish-fulfillment as a prominent factor in its motivation Freud, 76). He concluded that we should not take illusions

47

seriously as statements of reality because they are motivated by wish-fulfillment. Much of his own belief was motivated by his wish for the triumph of the scientific method, the progress of mankind from the ignorance of the past to a future of rational enlightenment. Such wishes are scarcely disguised in his writings. Yet in a world ultimately ruled by accident and chance such a belief in progress and rationality is surely not a statement of fact but of wish-fulfilment. By his own definition I must regard much of his critique of religion as an illusion since secular wish-fulfilment plays so prominent a factor in its motivation. I have to admit that it is hard for me to take Freud's argument for atheism seriously because it is so seriously flawed in both its formulation as well as its foundation. Wish 6: I wish my friend would recognize that the wish of atheism can be seen as a wish to suppress the truth about God. I realize you may not agree with all that I have written so far especially this last point. You may dismiss the above points as so much Christian fantasizing. But I am interested very much in why you might dismiss the above points. My hunch is that your faith commitment to some man-centred story makes it virtually impossible to exercise real choice and see the truth of the Christian story. Let me explain. The Freudian theory of wish-fulfillment is based on a deep acceptance of the enlightenment story that man is the centre of all things and that his reason is the arbiter of all truth. Freud said as much in his Future of an Illusion when he declared that ‚scientific work is the only way to the knowledge of external reality‛ (76). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Whose reality? Freud’s declaration is as dogmatic a statement of faith as anything in the Apostles’ Creed. And this faith statement flows from an enlightenment story of reality that serves to marginalize the Christian story of God. Why? The Christian story provides an answer—human beings are sinners who have betrayed the true and living God and in their sin and guilt try to suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18,19). Some scientists in their unguarded moments even admit this. The Physicist, J. W. N. Sullivan admits as much when he points to the dilemma of science regarding the principle that ‚life can only come from life.‛ This principle came from the experiments of Louis Pasteur when he refuted belief in ‚spontaneous generation‛ by showing that life comes only from life. Sullivan admits the dilemma that this scientific principle poses: ‚But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications‛ (Sullivan 1956, 94). Sullivan admits that there is a tendency in science to suppress ‚undesirable philosophic implications‛ such as a ‚supernatural creative act‛ which would then presuppose some supernatural creator such as the Bible prescribes. Science thereby must suppress the truth that ‚life can only come from life‛ not because it is experimentally invalid but because it does not fit into their story of reality, a story that must suppress theism. This ‚god-allergy‛ is not only unscientific but it threatens to endanger the practise of science itself by

48

ruling out before hand any understanding of nature or the universe that encourages theism. This is not neutral science but science controlled by a faith deeply antagonistic to the Christian story. This leads me then to conclude that non-Christian thinking in the sciences (psychology/psychoanalysis included) has a deep-seated wish to suppress the existence of the biblical God. Wish 7: I wish my friend would encounter the Christ that can deliver us from the wish-fulfillment of atheism. I said above that ‚your faith commitment to some man-centred story makes it virtually impossible for you to exercise real choice and see the truth of the Christian story.‛ The fear of judgment which fans our guilt and the distaste for total submission that offends our pride are two sources for the resistance to the Christian story and the persistence of the dream of atheism. But there is hope. Some years ago I met a man who conquered that fear in me and overcame my pride. This man was not just a mere man but was God himself whom I had been denying. The man I met and who captured my heart and changed the story of my life was Jesus of Nazareth. For prodigal sons who have wandered into the far country where the reality of a loving Father is dismissed as mere wish-fulfilment, the presence and proclamation of Christ offers science, psychology and those who act as the high priests of its underlying faith stories, a way to come to their senses and find their way back home to a loving father who will forgive all. This is the best wish of all because not only does it arise from our greatest longings, but it is also just the way reality is. Thanks for reading through my ‚wish list.‛ If there is anything you want from this list just let me know. I may not be able to wrap it up as a Christmas present and give it to you but I know someone I can ask to make sure you get it. In friendship, Mary

For discussion and application

1. Which of Mary‛s seven wishes packs the most punch? Why? Which one needs more work?

2. How does she use the resources of the Christian story to oppose atheism? 3. Would these arguments apply to other forms of atheism (protest atheism, Marxist

atheism, and chronic agnosticism?)

49

4. How might encountering Christ help someone overcome the challenge of atheism?

Reference list

Russell, Bertrand. 1957. A Free Man's Worship. Why I am Not a Christian. Quoted in Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P& R Publishing, 1994) 36.

Sullivan, J.W.N. 1956. The Limitations of Science. Quoted in Paul Little, Know Why You Believe.

(Downer's Grove: IVP, 1973), 12.

50

chapter 5

CHALLENGE 3: Your God did not create Wangari had felt a great sense of satisfaction after having heard of the fruitful discussion between her friend Mary and her Psychology professor Dr. Mumo concerning atheism. Nevertheless, the story was quite different with her Biology teacher, Dr. Otieno. Although she like most of the other students on campus held Dr. Otieno in high esteem, it disturbed her that one with such a brilliant mind would be so averse to the creation story.

During the first weeks of the last semester, Dr. Otieno laid out an imposing argument for an evolutionary worldview, effectively pointing out the convergence of various evidences from different fields of science. To sum it up, towards the end of the semester, Dr. Otieno had spent the last thirty minutes of the lecture talking about the childish immaturity and sheer irrationality of people who believed that there was some supreme being who created everything. ‚Let me lay it out for you in simple terms,‛ Dr. Otieno had said, ‚The world system is in a box. There is nothing outside of that box. Everything that happens occurs according to naturalistic laws. I have never seen God, I have never heard God. It is unreasonable for me to believe that God created. Unless you can show me God according to something that satisfies my epistemology or unless you can show me reasonably that God created, I will not believe.‛ Wangari had been able to arrange a meeting with Dr. Otieno in her office.

APOLOGETIC: A dialogue about naturalism

Wangari: [smiling] Thank you for meeting with me, Dr. Otieno. Dr. Otieno: You see, Wangari, think of the universe as a box. There is nothing outside

that box. All that there is, was and ever will be, is only what is in the box.1 Furthermore, everything that happens within that box occurs only according to the laws of nature. It has also been scientifically proven that all creatures, including man, descended from a common ancestry.

Wangari: I agree with you, Dr. Otieno. Man descended from a common ancestry. Dr. Otieno: I'm glad you're beginning to see the light, Wangari. For too long humanity has

been fooled by the false allegations from creationists. Wangari: Well, I don't think so. Dr. Otieno: Why not, I thought that we were in the same line of understanding? Actually

you were agreeing with a book that I once read by Charles Darwin entitled The Origin of Species where he categorically affirms with evidence from science that all species originated from a common ancestry. This is where I myself saw the light.

Wangari: There are different ways of perceiving Darwin’s theory about the origin of species.

51

Dr. Otieno: Do you want to tell me that you disagree with your professor? Wangari: Not really. From my reading on the subject, while evolution argues that we all

came from a common ancestry on the basis of evidence from the fossil records, the fossil record, rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, speaks of ‚sudden appearance‛. New species types appear suddenly and change very little after their appearance.

Dr. Otieno: What are you trying to say? Wangari: All I’m trying to say is that there are different ways to look at the facts of

evolution. Evolution predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the ‚gradual" change predicted by evolution theory. On top of this, once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct.

Dr. Otieno: But scientific methodology has historically proved on the basis of fossils that we have a common ancestry and there is evidence of organisms gradually evolving into other forms.

Wangari: Can I mention something about the gradual change? Dr. Otieno: Yes, please feel free. I see you have some knowledge in evolution. Wangari: It is very clear that some animals and plants have remained unchanged for

literally hundreds of millions of years. One creature in particular, the Coelacanth, is very instructive in relation to this matter.

Dr. Otieno: What about the Coelacanths? I have actually read about their ancestry in the tetra pod family and their relationship with the amphibians.

Wangari: Yes, that is one side of what has been shown. However, until 1938 when the first living Coelacanth was found in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar, Coelacanths were thought to have been extinct for more than 100 million years. Many evolutionists saw this discovery as a great opportunity to get a glimpse of the workings of a tetra pod ancestor. Coelacanths where found to resemble their proposed ancestors, the amphibians. It was hoped that some clues could be derived from the modern Coelacanth of just how a fish became pre-adapted for life on land, because there was not only a complete skeleton but a full set of internal organs to boot. The results of the study showed the contrary. The modern Coelacanth showed no evidence of internal organs pre-adapted for use in a terrestrial environment. The Coelacanth was found to be a fish – nothing more, nothing less. It was found that its bony fins are used as exceptionally well-designed paddles for changing direction in a deep-sea environment, not the proto-limbs of future amphibians. To me this shows the gaps in the mechanism of the expected gradual changes.2

Dr. Otieno: I see that there is sense in what you are saying. However, that is what we call an Achilles’ heel; that one fault does not disprove the fact that our existence on earth is a result of gradual change from a common ancestry.

52

Wangari: Isn’t it possible that this gradual change you are referring to might have occurred after God created the building blocks of life and the natural laws that might have governed the process of evolution?

Dr. Otieno: What exactly are you trying to say? Wangari: Don’t you think that God may have created these things with the eventual

emergence of life in mind, but that he at some point early on stepped back and let the natural laws govern the evolutionary process so that life eventually emerged from non-living material? This is what some scholars have referred to as Theistic Evolution.

Dr. Otieno: Are you suggesting that God was the brain behind the whole process of evolution?

Wangari: Maybe! I am trying to show you the other side of the same facts of evolution. My reason for doing this is to demonstrate that there are different ways to look at the facts. At every level there are different interpretations of facts, hence it is actually difficult to defend our positions on the basis of facts alone.

Dr. Otieno: Okay, I see we have different understandings about the origin of life. For now we shall leave it at that. Does it mean that we have come to a conclusion on this matter?

Wangari: Not really, I want to be open with you and let you know my point of vulnerability as a Christian.

Dr. Otieno: Absolutely, please go ahead. I have always known that Christians have many weaknesses though they never seem to accept it.

Wangari: That is what I am talking about. Many times Christians have out of pride been quick to judge and declare all evolutionists to be bad people. Harsh words and insults have been thrown at evolutionists.

Dr. Otieno: That is very true. I have been told the students in the Christian union refer to me as a child of the Devil. That is so rude of them. But tell me, please, how is this a vulnerability for you, Wangari?

Wangari: Well, I believe that the Christians who do this are thinking and acting contrary to what the Bible teaches with regard to our relationship with others. Ultimately, it portrays the God in whom we believe and the Christ that we follow very badly. Since we are followers of God, it’s quite easy for any non-Christian to misconstrue our thoughts and actions as being Biblical teachings. As strange as it may sound, it’s important to distinguish clearly between Biblical teaching and some contemporary practises and actions of Christians. I would like to apologize on behalf of the Christians that have insulted you. I believe that kind of behaviour doesn’t display the true essence of the Christian faith. I also wish to apologize for the way Christians have been generally dismissive to science and scientific approaches to understanding our universe. And I certainly am capable of the same kind of arrogance and harshness so please let me know if I am coming across that way. I think Christianity must come to a clear understanding of the role of science in life vis-à-vis the role of religion, and more specifically the role of Christianity.

53

Dr. Otieno: Well, I accept your apology, but I am curious about what you infer by talking about the role of science and the role of religion. What do you mean by this?

Wangari: Before I answer you directly, allow me to demonstrate what I mean by asking you some silly questions?

Dr. Otieno: What do you mean by silly questions? Usually I don't answer silly questions. Wangari: Please bear with me on this one. I feel that the answer to this whole issue may

be better demonstrated than simply stated. Dr. Otieno: Okay, go ahead . . . Wangari: How certain are you that evolution actually took place? Dr. Otieno: Well, considering that I went to one of the best universities in the UK and

obtained a PhD in the field of micro-biology plus the fact that I wrote my dissertation on parasitic mutation, I would say that I am quite well informed on the matter. Note that mutation and evolution have a lot in common.

Wangari: (Noting that Dr. Otieno never really answered the question decides to rephrase it). Let me put it this way, Dr. Otieno: Are you saying that you are quite well informed?

Dr. Otieno: Yes, Wangari, I admit, insofar as matters of evolution are concerned, I am much better placed than the average person.

Wangari: What percentage of all that there is to know about the cosmos do you think you know?

Dr. Otieno: That’s a ridiculous question! Wangari: It certainly is, but I have a reason for asking it. Would it help if I answered it

first? I believe that I know less than 1% of all there is to know about the cosmos. Now it is your turn!

Dr. Otieno: I know a lot more than that. Wangari: Is it 5%, 10% or even 100%? Dr. Otieno: Certainly not 100%. Maybe 10%, but I don’t like the question. Wangari: I warned you in advance; it is a silly question. I'm just totally amazed at your

answer. Dr. Otieno: Amazed! Why would you be amazed? Wangari: Well, I’m amazed because by your own admission you said a moment ago that

you were absolutely certain that God did not create. But is it not possible that in the 90% of all the facts in the universe that you admit that you don’t know there could be overwhelming evidence for the existence of the Creator God?

Dr. Otieno: I don’t think so. Wangari: I hear you saying that you have faith that there is no God, but I’m not hearing

scientific reasoning when you make a blank denial without investigating all the facts.

Dr. Otieno: What is your point? Wangari: Before I tell you that, let me ask another silly question: If I could show beyond a

shadow of a doubt that God is the creator of all things, would you then repent and become a born-again baptized Christian?

Dr. Otieno: I don’t see that happening.

54

Wangari: I expected you to say that and I think I know why you have to say so. Dr. Otieno: What do you mean? Wangari: Both our positions are fundamentally founded on belief. Dr. Otieno: So what you are saying is that my belief is in science and natural laws

whereas yours is in God as the creator. Wangari: That's correct, Dr. Otieno. Religion calls that faith. It seems clear to me that

there is really not much difference in our systems of thought. Clearly we are both believers; however, our epistemology with regard to the source of truth is very different. Both of us cannot be right in our beliefs. This being the case, we would both do well to question the veracity of our belief system. My belief and truth is rooted in God, the creator and sustainer of all things. Therefore I am wholly dependent on Him to make sense of reality. I would be willing to re-question my belief system if you also are willing to question yours. Can we agree on that, Dr. Otieno?

Dr. Otieno: Well, I must say that you argument is … interesting. I've never thought of it that way. You make it sound as if science is my God! That sounds strange to me . . .

Wangari: It’s not so strange, Dr. Otieno. It all boils down to our worldviews—or presuppositions. I have encountered someone who knows 100% of the facts about the universe and has spoken authoritatively on the subject. This authoritative spokesperson provides for me a basis for rationality in any field and gives me a solid basis for certainty—an absolutely rational source for my own reasoning and sense perception. What I am hearing you say, however, is that, starting with yourself and your limited rationality, you try to claim absolute or near absolute certainty on what appears to me to be not a rational basis at all but a faith commitment that begins by denying that the God of the Bible exists or creates.

Dr. Otieno: I don’t agree. Wangari: I know you don’t agree, and furthermore, I think you can’t agree. Your thinking

about God, creation and the universe is held captive by a non-Christian faith story that makes it impossible for you to build your thinking on an absolutely rational foundation, which the true and living God reveal in the scriptures and in Christ. But there is a real choice I can offer you. There is an alternative story upon which to build your science, a story that I once rejected but which I now accept and which has set me free intellectually and spiritually. May I tell you how I changed my faith story and how such a change may happen to you? [she shares her testimony]

For discussion and application

1. What is Dr. Otieno's perspective on the origin of life? What are the implications of her perspectives on the Christian story?

55

2. In spite of the difference between Wangari and Dr. Otieno in relation to their academic qualification, how does Wangari answer the Professor’s allegations?

3. Some Christians view science and scientists as enemies of God. How does Wangari display Christ-like behavior to her Professor? How should Christians behave and respond to scientific views?

4. What could be some of Dr. Otieno's presuppositions? How does Wangari point out the fallacy of these presuppositions? In order to capture Dr. Otieno’s presuppositions, Wangari is willing to re-question her beliefs as Dr. Otieno questions hers. Is there any value of this in an apologetic debate?

APOLOGETIC: Email exchange between Wangari and Mary

Dear Mary, I hope you are well. I'm so glad for the time we spent together over my holidays and your guidance on the ABC method of doing Christian Apologetics. Would you believe I actually used the method on none other than Dr. Otieno and I think she may be really reconsidering her stand? I have attached a copy of what I remember to be the conversation that Dr. Otieno and I had. Please go through it and give me your comments on the same. I hope to follow up on Dr. Otieno later. Nevertheless, Mary, a number of issues still disturb me with regard to Dr. Otieno's previous presentation in class plus some of what many scholars refer to as irrefutable evidence regarding the evolutionist views versus the creation story. I must confess to you that I have read and re-read the creation account in Genesis 1 but cannot seem to relate it with many of what seems to be genuine facts that evolutionists put forth. Please help me. Is it possible to reconcile the creation story and evolution, or must we simply reject the whole theory of evolution? Secondly, I did some reading on naturalism but could not seem to get a good understanding on the whole matter. Could you explain to me some of the salient issue with regard to this topic? Sincerely, Wangari. Dear Wangari,

56

I’m very fine. Thank you for your email. It is encouraging to know that you are grasping and applying the ABC method of defending the faith. I am glad you talked to Dr. Otieno about the issues of evolution. To begin, let me share with you some thoughts that I hope will clarify your understanding of the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis. One of the central themes of the Christian faith is that God is the Creator of the universe. This has a number of important implications for our understanding of the everyday world and our place in it as well as for our experience of the environment. The first verse of the Bible gives a satisfying and useful account of the origin of the heavens and the earth. The faith of humble Christians understands this better than the fancy of the most learned men. From what can be seen in heaven and on earth, we learn the power of the great Creator (Henry 2004). One of the greatest misunderstandings regarding the book of Genesis is that it was not written as a science book to answer questions of modern day scientists. Rather, it was written against the flawed polytheistic and pantheistic accounts of creation found in the Ancient Near East at the time of its authorship. This is vitally important to grasp hold of, for it sets the opening chapters of Genesis into their rightful context, to a time when people knew nothing about microbes or supernovas. If one does not agree with the whole idea of creation, then the chances are that they will not agree with the rest of the Scriptures (Cornerstone Church n.d.). By taking this into consideration (which we must as Christians) we see that the creation story as outlined in Genesis is quite uncomplicated. It does not mention binary fission, the laws of thermodynamics, DNA or any other biological details which interests scientists. In other words, the very things we find so important today in reconciling Genesis 1 were incomprehensible (and therefore unimportant) to people back then (Cornerstone Church n.d.). The biblical doctrine of creation is of central importance to the Christian faith. The overwhelming majority of people who struggle to believe in God’s existence claim to do so on the basis that science has disproved God, yet this is a totally unproven claim. This is the position taken by the naturalist, and it is from such a standpoint that Dr. Otieno states: ‚The world system is in a box. There is nothing outside of that box. Everything that happens occurs according to naturalistic laws. I have never seen God, I have never heard God. It is unreasonable for me to believe that God created.‛ (Sire 1997, 61–63) The primary reason for the rise of naturalism is the broad success of natural science from the 17th century onwards. God’s existence (or for that matter his non-existence) has never been ‚proven‛ from science, but then in all fairness, it can’t! Science by its job description is restricted to exploring the constituent of the physical universe and regular patterns in its behaviour. Because of that restriction it has nothing to say about whether there is anything other than the universe (McGrath, Campbell-Jack and Evans 2006, 478–479).

57

The implication of this is that science has no mandate to make claims regarding whether or not God can exist. For it stands to reason that if there is a God he would be vastly superior to us in every conceivable way. Even the brightest human mind would not be capable of fathoming God, let alone attempting to explain Him away. Let me state a few Scriptural reasons why we as Christians should believe in the creation account despite the various proofs evolution has presented:

1. God created the universe; ‚In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth‛ (Gen 1:1). The universe did not come in to being by chance. God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Greek viewed this as ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes).3 This is a true law of nature, but laws of nature cannot bind the transcendent creator of nature. Laws of nature are finite, but God is infinite. Creation out of nothing is not irrational because it does not claim that anything ever popped out with inadequate cause. God is the first cause of everything. As far as human words can attempt to describe, he is: eternal, independent, self-existent in his being, the Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself without any foreign influence, the cause of all being, the upholder of all things, infinitely perfect, eternally self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made, illimitable in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of existence, indescribable in his essence, and known fully only to himself because an infinite mind can be fully apprehended only by itself. In short, God is a being who from his infinite wisdom cannot err or be deceived, and who from his infinite goodness can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and kind. This is God the Creator (Clarke 2004).

2. The order of the world is established and upheld by God; ‚Now the earth was

formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters‛ (Gen 1:2). The origin of all things cannot be complete without the recognition that the universe was brought into existence by a pre-existent God, who is the sole owner of creation (Cornerstone Church n.d.). God's divine order of the universe makes the difference. If we claim to have evolved by chance, then our lives have no preset divine plan. The only order that would therefore exist is the one that we would set for ourselves. This would mean that there would be no higher standard than our own desires. Desire becomes its own reason and ultimately its own justification. This leaves life without order and purpose (Kreeft and Tacelli 1994, 106).

3. There is a distinction between human beings, the image of God, and animals,

both in origin and in their relationship to each other. Man doesn’t have a common biological ancestor with animals. Naturalist philosophy avers that everything is basically impersonal. That is to say, the impersonal laws like gravity are more fundamental than anything personal. Naturalistic explanations cannot make any sense of ethical laws. This view cannot account for moral values, logic, the human

58

mind, and reason, all of which are aspects of personality. Ethical values and logical reasoning only makes sense if we assume that the universe is personal. So if there is a God who ordained ethical virtues and vices, logic is going to work (Sire 1997, 64–68, 72–76).

4. Because of divine creation, various works of God resemble. Different creatures

point not to a common ancestry but a common creator.

Please read the account of creation in Genesis 1, and see whether you understand it better now. I hope my thoughts will be helpful to you. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Mary Dear Mary, Thank you very much for your email that touched on several issue to do with the creation account in Genesis 1. I have re-read it and now seem to understand it better. However, I still wish to hear your perspective in relation to evolution and naturalism. Thank you, Wangari Dear Wangari, I'm glad you understand the creation account and evolution better. Here are a few highlights of what I think about evolution and naturalism. As Christians our fundamental presupposition is that God created all things and is in control of all things, while the evolutionists and naturalists reason independently of God, thereby falsely presupposing the authority of reason and their ability to reason. In my understanding evolution can be explained as a slow process of upward change in which matter and energy become a living substance and eventually a living being. This is contrary to the creation model, which basically believes that the different species were created and that reproduction within their own kind took place after that. Let me introduce three other concepts to you in relation to the whole matter of evolution and the origin of life.

The idea of Micro-evolution: Micro-evolution refers to minor changes within the same species.4 Christians (creationists) may find this concept more acceptable

59

because there are no radical changes—each kind reproduces after its own species, e.g. a lion gives birth to a lion and an ape gives birth to an ape.

The idea of Macro-evolution: This notion avers that living things over a long period of time eventually change into completely different species. For this to happen there are major changes that take place slowly. An example of this would be a cat eventually changing into a lion by the process of evolution.

Darwin was a British Naturalist who revolutionized the science of biology by his demonstration of evolution by natural selection. He authored and published the book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859.5 His ideas have since then greatly influenced scientific views.

Intelligent Design Theory: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection (Meyer n.d., Questions about Intelligent Design). The theory was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon, who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified, designing intelligence.

Intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origin; one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose‛ (Meyer n.d., Not By Chance).

Some Christian Apologists, despite recognizing the weakness in the claim of 'mere design', acknowledge its value in apologetics in countering or perhaps even removing the impediments in the path to genuine saving faith, namely: (1) The two tier model of God and nature wherein God is so removed that he does not, or even cannot, interact with the material world in any substantive manner, and (2) The prevailing sense in much of our culture that naturalism offers adequate explanations for all of reality (Blooms n.d.). As believers, it is by faith that we understand that the universe was created (Heb. 11:3). We fall in to an error if we assume creation by known mechanisms such as evolution and natural science, exclusive of any divine or supernatural control of it. Evolutionary biology is not intrinsically atheist; one can believe thoroughly in the absolute authority of the Bible and still be an evolutionist of a certain type.

60

Let me point out same fallacies with regard to an apparent contradiction between evolution and science:

1. Evolution does not fit the strict definition of science. It can not be repeated or measured.

2. To observe evolution in the past is extremely difficult because of the unknown variables that may have been present in the past.

3. Science is exact. Presently there is no agreement for a mechanism for evolution. A mechanism provides the answer to the very important question: How?

4. Evolution seeks the ultimate truth through naturalism which rejects the idea of any supernatural or transcendent being (Fallacies of Evolution n.d.).

Naturalism does not only explicitly deny the existence of God, but also denies that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events such as evolution. Naturalism affirms only the existence of the natural world. The enormous success of natural science from the 17th century onward largely propagated naturalistic views. Hence because of this success, scientific naturalism makes the assumption that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge (McGrath, Campbell-Jack and Evans 2006, 478). This assumption arises from the false presupposition that the central function of religion is to explain the existence of natural phenomena. As such, the naturalist on weighing the evidence regarded science as providing better reasons for a wide range of natural phenomena, and as a result disregarded all religion and its claims. Religion, however, goes beyond merely explaining the reasons for the existence of the natural world. People sense the presence of God in their lives and respond to Him in numerous different ways (McGrath, Campbell-Jack and Evans 2006, 479). Finally, let me point out some of the limitations of naturalistic science with reference to theistic beliefs (McGrath, Campbell-Jack and Evans 2006, 479, 480):

Natural science by its own job description is restricted to the study of that which constitutes the natural world or the physical universe. However, the Christian religion believes in God who transcends the universe and is therefore beyond the restrictions of natural science. In other words, because of this restriction natural science is simply not in any position to claim whether or not God exists.

Natural science rejects the idea of the existence of God on the basis of there being no scientific proof for God. This is, however, a presumptuous claim that presupposes the efficacy of scientific methodology as being adequate for all fields of study. Science is not the ultimate source of truth.

I hope my thoughts are helpful to you. You seem to be learning and grasping the ABC method of defending the faith well. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

61

Sincerely, Mary Dear Wangari, I encourage you to stick to the ABC method of doing apologetics. To further strengthen your apologetics I remind you to answer honest questions, behave as a Christian, and also seek to capture the mind. Here are three steps that I read from Pratt that could be of help in relation to this matter: Step 1: Admit that the Christians perspective stems from his commitment to Christ. Step 2: The Christians position on creation is radically opposed to many popular, evolutionary theories today. There are different kinds of evidence: Evidence from Scripture

1. God created the world. The universe did not come into being by chance (Gen 1:1).

2. The order of the world is established and upheld by God (Gen 1:2). Whatever process may have occurred was not random, but God was fully in control.

3. There is a distinction between human beings, the image of God, and animals, both in origin and in their relationship to each other. Man doesn’t have a common biological ancestor with animals.

4. True science will always hold firm the absolute authority of the Bible. 5. Because of divine creation, various works of God resemble. Different creatures

point not to a common ancestry but a common Creator. Evidence from the external world

1. Many respectable Christian scientists acknowledge scientific evidence used to prove evolution but arrive at other conclusions.

2. The evidence from evolution is far from conclusive. Evidence from personal experience

1. A believer who knows God realizes that he is not a mere animal; he is the image of God.

2. Believers know that God, not chance, is in control of things. Step 3: These arguments have no weight for the unbeliever because of his commitment to independence. Arguments by Folly

62

Point 1: The non-Christian should be shown the groundlessness of commitment to independence. Point 2: There are many approaches in answering the unbeliever:

1. Show the unbeliever that he has not dealt adequately with all evidence for and against evolution. Criticize the reliability of science in these matters. Point out that scientists who believe in evolution believe all sorts of things

which cannot be proven scientifically. Non-Christian scientists are yet to give an adequate explanation for the lack of

fossil evidence for the successive stages of the supposed evolutionary scale. 2. Scientists cannot examine all the evidence and may one day change their views

as they have done before. It is for this reason that evolution is called a theory and that there are many differing evolutionary theories.

3. The unbeliever cannot object with certainty against the position because his view is totally ungrounded.

Point 3: Challenge the non-Christian concerning his commitment to independence. This relates to the deep presuppositions of the non-Christian. Regarding behaviour, it is appropriate to behave as a Christian. To start with, it is important to ask as to whether evolution is possible. According to Kreeft and Tacelli, if it is true that we evolved simply by blind chance, not divine design, then our lives have no overarching meaning, no preset divine plan, no scripts. The only meaning, purpose or values that exist are the ones that we invent for ourselves. These can never be right or wrong, justified or unjustified by a higher standard than our own desires. For instance, there is no real reason to prefer Christian ethics to Stalinist ethics except ones own desires. Desire becomes its own reason, its own justification (Kreeft and Tacelli 1994, 106–107). Therefore, Wangari, since we are created in the image of God, we ought to behave like Him and have personal attributes that truly represent him. Thank you, Mary

For discussion and application

1. Wangari was in a dilemma as she read through the creation account in Genesis 1. This was as a result of the various proofs that evolution had presented. Mary responded to this by stating four reasons as to why we as Christians should believe in the creation account of the Bible. What are these four reasons that Mary presents to Wangari? Which one of these do you think is central for understanding the creation account in Genesis 1?

63

2. How does Wangari relate the story of creation to the claims of evolution?

3. In comparison to other metanarratives that dominate the understanding of humanistic

thinking, what in your opinion makes naturalism so persistent, especially in relation to contemporary society?

4. How do Mary's additional thoughts help towards strong arguments in the face of science?

5. How would you evaluate Wangari's response in dealing with the challenge of evolution? What were her strengths and weaknesses in line with the same? Suggest possible ways in which you could have handled this scenario.

64

Reference list

Blooms, John. Does Intelligent Design Help Christian Apologetics?

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/papers/ets/2005/bloom/bloom.htm (accessed 20 June 2008).

Bohlin, Ray. The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory. Probe ministries

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html (assessed 20th June 2008). British broadcasting services, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/

darwin_charles.shtml (accessed 20 June 2008). Clarke, Adam. 2004. In Thompson Chain Reference Bible Library: Adam Clarke’s Bible

Commentary. CD-ROM. Word Search Corporation. Cornerstone Church, What about Genesis and evolution?

http://www.cornerstoneuk.org.uk/investigate/questions/evolution/ (assessed 20 June 2008).

Creation Studies, Fallacies of evolution, http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/fallacies.html

(assessed 20 June 2008). Got Questions, What does Creation "ex nihilo" mean? http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-ex-

nihilo.html (assessed 20 June 2008). Henry, Matthew. 2004. In Thompson Chain Reference Bible Library: Matthew Henry Concise. CD

ROM. Word Search Corporation. Kreeft, Peter & Ronald K. Tacelli. 1994. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press. McGrath, Gavin, W.C. Campbell-Jack, and Stephen Evans, ed. 2006. New Dictionary of Christian

Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Meyer, Stephen. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is intelligent design?

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php (accessed 20 June 2008).

65

Meyer, Stephen. Not By Chance: From bacterial propulsion systems to human DNA: evidence of

intelligent design is everywhere, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3059 (accessed 20 June 2008).

Pratt L. Richard Jr. 1979. Every Thought Captive. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and

Reformed Publishing Co.. Sire, James. 1997. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue. 3d ed. Downers

Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997. 1 James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois:

InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61–3. 2 Ray Bohlin, The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory, Probe ministries

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html (accessed 20th June 2008). 3 "Ex nihilo" is Latin for "from nothing." The expression "creation ex nihilo" refers to God creating

everything from nothing. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Prior to that moment there was nothing. God didn’t make the universe from preexisting building blocks. He started from scratch. ‚What does Creation ‘ex nihilo’ mean?‛ http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-ex-nihilo.html (accessed 20th June 2008).

4 Microevolution (small adaptations): No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called

"microevolution", which is variation within a type of organism caused by natural selection, occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. This is not real evolution and yet nearly all touted evidences for evolution are of this category. Actually, "microevolution" is a misnomer because it implies that "a little" evolution is continually taking place and that, over eons of time, these

66

add up to big changes. In fact, no evolution is taking place at all because there is no increase in complexity, such as the development of a new organ or species, but merely the accentuation of some already present feature over others. A change in eye or hair colour, for example, is not an evolutionary change, but merely a variation within the same genesis kind.

5 Darwin worked on his theory for twenty years. After learning that another naturalist, Alfred Russell

Wallace, had developed similar ideas, the two made a joint announcement of their discovery in 1858. In 1859 Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. The book was extremely controversial, because the logical extension of Darwin's theory was that homo sapiens was simply another form of animal. It made it seem possible that even people might just have evolved, possibly from apes, and destroyed the prevailing orthodoxy on how the world was created. Darwin was vehemently attacked, particularly by the Church. British broadcasting services http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles.shtml (accessed 20th June 20, 2008).

67

chapter 6

CHALLENGE 4: Your God is not good One troubling episode occurred when Wangari was walking with a friend down town Moi Avenue, Nairobi. They passed by crippled children and shriveled mothers with dying babies. After seeing case by case of suffering humanity, Wangari’s friend blurted out: ‚If your God is so good Wangari, why does he allow so much suffering? Multiply these dying babies by millions and you have a good reason for rejecting this God you are crazy about.‛ Wangari defended God’s goodness but her arguments seemed weak and ineffective. How could one believe in the goodness of God in a world of such suffering and evil?

APOLOGETIC: The challenge of suffering and evil

When Wangari returned to her hostel from that walk round town, she was very troubled by the words of Njeri about the problem of suffering. In her reflections, she thought of the reality of suffering that is found within the pages of the Bible like the life of Job and the passion of Jesus. At the same time, she was convinced that God is still good despite all the suffering. So she invited her friend Njeri over for a cup of tea in her hostel that they may chat over the issue of suffering that they saw as they walked down the streets of Nairobi. When Njeri arrived, Wangari re-introduced the conversation on suffering from where they had left it off, as they enjoyed a cup of tea. Wangari: I was perplexed by your comments after we had seen the suffering people in the

streets of Nairobi. You alluded to the fact that suffering in the world is a good reason to doubt the goodness of God. Is that your position?

Njeri: Thank you, Wangari, for asking. You know I have always believed that people should face reality. The reality of suffering in the world must lead any logical person to the conclusion that there is no good God.

Wangari: Njeri, please help me understand you; do you feel that for God to be good he must respond objectively and be seen acting to alleviate the suffering of humanity?

Njeri: I know you will be offended by this, Wangari, but this is my position. The logic is clear. How can a God, who is infinitely good, allow people to suffer the way we saw? How do you explain the recent death of many in Rift Valley? Why didn’t this good God defend his people from being burnt in a church in Eldoret? Wangari, are you blind not to see what I see about this God of yours?

Wangari: I agree with you that suffering is evident in the world, even among Christians who believe in God.

68

Njeri: Have you given up your strong stand about the goodness of God? Wangari: [smiling] No Njeri, I have not denied my faith in God and his goodness. Njeri: Are you trying to say that the good in the world outweighs the evil, so we should all

believe in God? Wangari: I am actually trying to argue that God sends rain, sunshine, babies and all the

perfect gifts to all people alike to the evil and those not so evil. Do you agree with that Njeri?

Njeri: Wangari, you may argue that God is good because he does a few good deeds but if evil persists it proves that he is not all powerful, nor all knowing as you Christians claim. These are the questions that make me doubt your God, Wangari.

Wangari: My point is not that the problem of suffering has an easy answer but that there are other valid and logical ways to look at the question besides yours.

Njeri: Good. Then there are two sides to it. I guess then that’s the end of the story, no one wins.

Wangari: There are two sides to the story but it even gets better than that. Njeri I feel that I owe you an apology.

Njeri: For what? Wangari: We struggle with this question; we give superficial answers to it. I sincerely

apologize for those times in which the church has been an agent of evil. Njeri: Do you mean that even Christians wrestle with the problem of evil? Wangari: Yes of course. I don’t fully understand why things happen the way they do. The

sense of God’s presence and absence is real in our lives. Many suffer while others, even less righteous people are doing well. But I really want to understand your position better. May I ask you some questions that you might see as silly?

Njeri: Like what? Wangari: If I answer all your questions about the problem of evil and suffering and showed

you beyond a shadow of doubt that God is good, would you give up your current position and become a born-again baptized believer?

Njeri: No, I don’t think that there could be an answer to my problem that would make me change my thinking about God.

Wangari: So you are absolutely certain that God is not good, so certain in fact that you cannot imagine any valid answer to the problem that would change your mind?

Njeri: That is correct. The problem of evil is so great that I am absolutely certain that if there is a God then he cannot be good.

Wangari: I found your certainty about God and his lack of goodness the most interesting thing you have said in our conversation.

Njeri: Why so interesting? Wangari: I will tell you in a moment but first let me ask another silly question if I may? Njeri: I supposed I cannot stop you. Wangari: What percentage of all there is to know about God, evil and suffering in the

world be necessary to have absolute certainty about the question of God’s goodness?

Njeri: I don’t know, why?

69

Wangari: I’ll tell you in a minute. Let me answer the question myself, first I probably know less than 10% of all that there is to know about the issue. What about you?

Njeri: I don’t like where this is going, but if I must answer then I would say less than 10%. Wangari: That is very interesting, Njeri. What I hear you saying then is that on the basis of

less than 10% of all that there is to know about the problem of suffering that you have absolute certainty about this, so much that you have stated that nothing would ever change your mind. Here is another silly question: Is it not possible that in the 90% of all that you admit you do not know about God and evil and suffering there could be overwhelming proof that God is good?

Njeri: What are you saying? Wangari: Humour me. If I admit that I do not know about 90% of the fact about

something, how logical is it for me to claim absolute certainty about that area? Njeri: Maybe you have a point. Wangari: Your certainty on the fact that God is not good and mine that God is good is a

matter of belief and understanding of God’s nature. All of us could use reason to support our faith and belief. I think we are being honest with ourselves that our physical and spiritual needs have played a role in our convictions and our stands.

Njeri: So where are we heading to Wangari? I have always believed that God is not good. I have experienced many instances in my life when I have looked for a Christian to help or any good news to encourage me, and I have not found any. I do not know how to deal with evil that I see every day in my life.

Wangari: I once was where you are Njeri, doubting the goodness of God over my life and not having any hope for a good life. I encountered Christ, his teaching and I got the new way of understanding, reasoning and belief. More importantly I have hope in the cross of Jesus for my daily life, for I have noticed that the atonement of Christ vindicates both justice of God and his mercy. Rather than doubting God’s love, care and ability to do good, I have believed and now I have freedom, and power to live victoriously even in the midst of suffering. The choice I made, which has worked for me, I believe can also work for anyone. Can I share with you about this story, another day, when you have enough time?

For discussion and application

1. What is Njeri’s problem with the goodness of God in relation to human suffering? 2. What is Wangari’s interpretation of Njeri’s question on God’s failure to respond to

human suffering? How does Wangari do step A? What are her best arguments to show that there can be alternative rational Christian ways of understanding the problem of evil?

70

3. What was her B answer? How did Wangari behave as a Christian? Was it a weakness on the part of Wangari to admit the suffering of Christ and Job in the Bible? Was it a strength for her to admit the paradox of suffering and God’s goodness?

4. What was Wangari’s C answer? How did she go about capturing Njeri’s underlying

view on suffering and God’s goodness? What were the silly questions she asked? What would we say is Njeri’s presupposition?

APOLOGETIC: Emails explaining the Christian view of suffering and evil

Dear Njeri, Thank you again for having some time for us to talk over a cup of tea in my hostel. I have to say that I enjoyed our talk together and have reflected much on our conversation on suffering. In fact the more I have reflected on this the more I see the reality of suffering and at the same time the more I see the goodness of God. You, however, touched me a lot by your arguments and especially when I evaluated and saw that it is true that many people, even among those who are faithful to Christ, continue to suffer deeply. Njeri, I know that even if you have questions about the goodness or even the existence of God as defined by Christianity, you are also genuinely interested in knowing what Christians have said on the subject over the years. This is the point of this email. You pointed out correctly that belief in an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing and infinitely loving God presents logical inconsistencies, which need to be clarified. You also pressed me further to admit that if God is good he must want to do away with evil, if he is powerful he must have the means to do it and if he is knowledgeable he must know of the best way that would not hurt people. Christians wrestle with these questions too. This problem as we know it today was first articulated in this form during the age of the enlightenment. It was then that people proposed metanarratives aimed at eliminating belief in God. Like I told you Njeri, all our beliefs come from an underlying belief which can either be Christian or non-Christian. The story developed greater force in the face of the two World Wars that showed the dark side of the world and its development. It is interesting to note that rather than blame fellow human beings who were the architects of the genocide occasioned by the two wars, the authors of the anti-Christian metanarratives blamed it on the God of the Christians. Of course one can sympathise with the fact that the utopia hoped for after the age of industrialization failed to materialize so someone had to take the blame; sadly, this was heaped on God. (Dau 2003, 115, 119) Allow me to explain some ways in which Christians have tried to explain this problem and why I think these approaches do not really answer the questions.

71

First, it is argued that since human beings and angels alike are created with a will, then they have the ability to choose evil over good, so human choices are to blame for the evil that we see in the world. Two questions then arise. First, what about natural phenomena? And secondly, why would God create beings that are capable of disobedience? The second states that evil is the only way that God can bring people to realize that they are sinful and later repent. This makes evil a necessary part of man’s story such that without it man may not be able to attain repentance. The third argument is that the evil that God permits is justifiable as it achieves greater good or prevents greater evil from happening. The problem is that God being infinitely powerful is able to devise ways of bringing about greater good without hurting us or even prevent greater evil in the same way. These Njeri, are some of the explications that people have given for the presence of evil in the world. I however, feel, like I told you that as a finite being I cannot exonerate nor accuse God. I am left with the reliance on the one with the ultimate answers. I will not join you in denying God’s goodness or his existence, but will rather be sheltered in the showers of his goodness. I really look forward to hear from you through questions and your insight on this topic. In the meantime please remember our date to discuss these further. Regards, Wangari Dear Mary, I have attached our discussion and my follow-up conversation with Njeri. Please comment and let me know what else to include in our future conversations. I am grateful for the ABC approach to apologetics. Gratefully, Wangari Dear Wangari, This is great but do not forget the biblical truths available. You also need to remember Dr. Isaiah Dau’s suggested five-fold biblical explanations to suffering given in Suffering and God: A Theological Reflection on the War in Sudan.

1. Suffering as a consequence of sin: From the Christian perspective we see instances where people suffer as a result of sin both in the OT and NT (Gen. 39, Jos. 7:2–12, Job 15:20, Ps. 107:17, Mark 2:1–12, Luke 13:1–2, John 9:1–41). The fact of the matter is that when people deviate from the known standards of

72

God they encounter various consequences of their conduct. Some of these consequences bear enormous pain and suffering. It is also important to note that the sin of others could bring suffering to innocent people. It is also important to note also that the sin of others could bring suffering to people.

2. Suffering as a corrective and a disciplinary measure: This entails the aspect of God drawing us into conformity with his will and purpose for life (Dau 2003, 180). This is a discipline that God give to the people he loves in order to bring them back to himself from estrangement. Examples include Deut. 8:5, Ps. 94:12–13, Prov. 3:11–12, I Cor 11:32, Heb 12:1–6.

3. Suffering as a test of faith or faithfulness: As children of God, our faith has to be tested as an affirmation of our commitment and trust in God. This is done by God whose aim is not to make us stumble but to strengthen our stand (Deut. 8:2–3, Ps. 139:23, Job 23:8, Jam. 1:12–15, I Pet 1:6–7).

4. Suffering as a direct result of following Christ: Suffering will come as a result of following Christ, which comes from the world as a natural response to their witness (Dau 2003, 190) (Matt 5:11–12, John 15:18–21; 16:2–4, Act 9:15). The kingdom system is different from the world system and therefore any attempt to bring Christian principles and ideologies will be unpopular, leading to persecution of all kinds.

5. Innocent suffering; the experience of Job: The victim suffers not because of what he has done but because of cosmic, unseen powers beyond his control. The afflictions of Job are a practical example of this argument. Job 1–2. Christians need to admit that suffering in the world is real and painful. But we should also remember that as McGrath puts it, ‚Faith demands that we raise our sights, and look to what lies ahead‛ (1992, 145). We should not only focus on bad found in suffering alone, but also the good. Blocher observes that, ‚evil is a necessary component of the World and that evil is the ‘ransom of a great good’‛ (NDCA 2006, 250).

In addition to Dau’s suggestions, you also need to recall what McGrath said concerning the problem of suffering. He said, ‚suffering is not pointless, but leads to glory‛ (1992, 144). McGrath was addressing the issue of the future hope of resurrection in Christ that awaits those who suffer even unto death. For such reason, Paul in Romans 8:18 was able to declare that, ‚our present suffering are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.‛ I hope Wangari that the above outlined explanations to the issue of suffering will re-enforce or be useful for your future deliberations with Njeri. I also want you to take note that, ‚scripture does not make God’s victory of evil the reason for originally permitting it‛ (Blocher NDCA, 250). It is my hope that you will remember that we are not arguing for the fact of the original cause of suffering but what scripture points out as reasons for suffering. I suppose that you include this in your argument in the future.

Sincerely in Christ,

73

Mary

For discussion and application

1. Do you think the historical approach that Wangari gave to Njeri is necessary? 2. How does Wangari conclude her email to Njeri and what was the impact? 3. What are the strengths and weakness of the biblical approach used by Mary to

Wangari?

Reference list Blocher, H.A.G. 2006. ‚Evil‛ in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. W. C. Campbell-Jack,

Gavin McGrath, Stephen Evans (editors), Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006. McGrath, Alister. 1992. Bridge Building: Communicating Christianity effectively. Leicester: Inter-

Varsity Press. Pratt, Richard. 1979. Every thought Captive. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. Dau, Isaiah Majok. 2003. Suffering and God: A Theological Reflection on the War in Sudan.

Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa. Frame John M. 1994. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An introduction. New Jersey: Phillipsburg

Publishers.

74

Sire James W. 1988. The Universe next door. Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Gutierrez Gustavo. 1988. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. New York: Orbis

Books.

75

chapter 7

CHALLENGE 5: Your God is too narrow One highlight of the term for Wangari was the chance to get to know someone from another faith. She worked on a class project with an Asian girl named Shoba, who was a devout Hindu. Wangari was impressed with her kindness and friendliness. She wasn't at all like some other Asians she had known at secondary school who seemed cliquish and prejudiced against Africans. Shoba began to talk to Wangari about her faith in Krishna the same way Wangari talked about her faith in Christ. Wangari was intrigued. A few weeks later in religion class, the lecturer made a strong case for the equality of all religions before God and the arrogance of any one religion claiming to be better than all the other ones. Wangari knew that Christ was the only way but couldn't really get over the shock of Shoba's graciousness and her lecturer's strong arguments for pluralism. If God wanted to reveal himself to all mankind wouldn't he do it in a universal way rather than in a narrow way, through Israel and its Messiah? Wasn’t it arrogant for Christians to think they have the only way?

APOLOGETIC: One right religion in a world with so many alternatives?

One afternoon, Wangari was having a Coke with Shoba following the group meeting for their class project. The conversation drifted to matters of faith and religion: Shoba: Christianity is a lovely religion with it’s principles of love and compassion, and

Jesus is certainly an inspirational figure. Wangari: I agree with you on that. What do you like about your faith? Shoba: Oh, there are so many things, but mostly that it allows me to accept other people

as they are, while also allowing me to be who I am. Wangari: How is that? Shoba: Well, I believe that all people should be allowed to worship as they see fit,

because our ultimate goal is the same: the search for the truth and light that is within us all. For example, Christians may think they have a monopoly on the commandment to love, but it was originally found in Judaism. Both Islam and Hinduism are also concerned about love. As I see it, all religions are basically moving towards the same ultimate goal so that if we compare the world religions we see numerous similarities, a witness about the same goal on the foundational level. I don’t think it is right to not recognize that. I would imagine perfect Christian love would accept and embrace all people, allowing them to be themselves, instead of fighting against other religions with the same goal.

76

Wangari: I hear your concern about love as the goal of religion. I also hear your conviction that Christian love should embrace everyone. There is much that I can agree with in both of those statements. Jesus accepts us just as we are, even dying for us while we were still his enemies and he invites everybody to take part in that. The concept of love is certainly found in various religions. But you are selective in your examples to prove your view. Hinduism believes that we have to free ourselves from ‚this-world‛ matters? Where does love fit in such a picture? Furthermore, what if we ask about how love is understood in these different religions? What a Muslim calls love may be very different from what a Hindu or a Christian would call love. And when we expand the discussion to other concepts beside love, then we see that world religions are very different, even contradicting each other. You know Ahmad, right? Take as an example, Ahmad’s and my perspective on the Bible and Jesus. They are essentially irreconcilable. Or even with Christianity and your religion: how do you bring together a religion that says God is a state of being, and another that says that God is real and personal? Some religions even say that there is no God. How do you hope that all these religions eventually result in the best outcome for their followers when they are so divergent on their most basic tenets? Don’t you think that such differences are important?

Shoba: Maybe on the surface level, but I believe we all take part in the one and same ultimate being, so the only reason why we see things differently is that we have not yet realized that. We are all on our way, reaching toward the ideal concept of love. There may be minor differences, but it does not mean we are not moving towards the same goal.

Wangari: In your opinion then, the Christian view is wrong? Shoba: Not quite. I’m saying that we are all on our way. The Christian concept of love is

right because it tells us to do our best. However, I believe love is better understood if we consider all the contributions of the world religions together. Then we will get a fuller picture of what love really is. We can be satisfied that we are at least trying to move in the direction of understanding. The effort toward the realization of truth is what matters. I am sure you will acknowledge that there are many good people on earth who do not believe in God according to your narrow definition. What happens to them?

Wangari: I certainly appreciate your compassion and concern. And your view might turn out to be true. The problem is that we do not have access to all information on all religions, so we cannot say whether they are the same when we dig deep under the surface level. On one level, it makes sense that God, whatever he or she may be, is accessible to everyone who uses whatever means, as long as they are trying. No one would ever have to wonder if they are wrong. I’m just concerned about the differences. To me they seem irreconcilable. Will you not accept that there are valid arguments both for and against similarities in religions?

Shoba: There may be reasonable arguments for differences in religions, but then that is all the more reason for everyone to accept everyone else as they are. If we are guided by the uniting factor of love, we are heading towards God. When everyone

77

insists on his own way, chaos will be the result. Emphasis should not be on what you believe, but rather in that you are making an effort in the right direction.

Wangari: Is there a guiding factor, a sort of compass that shows us what the right direction is?

Shoba: Yes. For me that guiding factor is love, but I recognize that some other equally important values may be the main consideration for others.

Wangari: But if something is true, it is true whether we believe it or not, or rather, it isn’t any less so because we don’t believe in it. The truth about God should not be determined on the basis of what we think it is.

Shoba: I’m afraid I just don’t see it that way. And our world today is too small for anyone to be dogmatic.

Wangari: What exactly do you mean by that? Shoba: What I mean is that we see so many war conflicts in the world. Many of them are

due to intolerance and disagreement over doctrinal positions: religious, political, and so many others. Take as an example the fighting in Nigeria between Christians and Muslims. Why is it not possible for them to see the beauty and truth in the other religion instead of fighting over small doctrinal disagreements? I could find dozens of other similar examples. If we adopted the view that all humanity is moving towards the same centre from different perspectives, then we would not see such kinds of conflicts.

Wangari: With regard to the conflict I agree with you, and I myself feel sad about that too. However, I do not quite agree with your explanation and generalisation on the issue. Mutual respect and love certainly are noble goals, and I admire that. I am not at all suggesting that they aren’t. There, however, is nothing about them that in any way negates the possible existence of an absolute truth. If we refuse to recognize it, it doesn’t make it any less true or any less universal. Doctrines may be an issue of conflict in some areas, but I believe other factors contribute to the conflict in Nigeria. Furthermore, you cannot generalise from that single example. What about South Africa? Should we argue that Apartheid was okay because it was just one among many valid viewpoints? Was it wrong to correct the theological errors used to justify racism? Don’t you think we have to criticise such unjust systems?

Shoba: That is exactly my point. Apartheid was trying to dominate and suppress by means of doctrinal intolerance. If they had adopted the ideal of love and tolerance instead of imposing their intolerant and aggressive belief on the black Africans we wouldn’t have seen such injustice. They should just have been able to live together in peace.

Wangari: I see your point. But then you are actually disagreeing with their belief system even though your own ideal is to tolerate all religions and beliefs. And this is where we are getting to my point. Tolerating every religious viewpoint will inevitably lead to lack of action against injustice. As a pluralist, you have no final authority by which to evaluate other people’s belief. I think this is very dangerous. What would have happened if the black Africans in South Africa were pluralists

78

and consequently their only response to injustice was tolerating the views of their oppressors? And how should we deal with the issues in Southern Sudan without pointing out that the oppressors are wrong? There are so many people, past and present, who we condemn for their actions, yet they claim they were told to do them by God. How can we invalidate their claims while also advocating for all claims being equally legitimate? I admit that Christianity has in some cases been used as an excuse in conflicts, but I also think that pluralism would not be an answer to the problems of the world.

Shoba: So what you are saying is that none of us are giving satisfying answers to the problems in the world?

Wangari: I’m saying that the evidence we have used to argue our case can be viewed differently and so we cannot say that religious absolutism is more likely to lead to conflict than pluralism is. Likewise, as we saw before, evidence regarding similarities and dissimilarities between religious beliefs can be interpreted either way. Are you willing to agree that there could be more than one valid way to measure the truth in a religion than just whether it is loving and tolerant?

Shoba: I guess I would agree that it is possible, but I don’t think it is relevant anyway. For if it was, why wouldn’t God tell me that, me and millions of others? There are too many people left out of that picture. You cannot discount the possibility that God speaks to us in different ways.

Wangari: There would indeed be many people left out of the picture, if the situation was as you described. However, God has told us all we need to know about himself in his created order. It is called his general revelation. When you look at the world; at nature, people and just life in general, and how unlikely it is that it all happened by chance, it is supposed to tell you that he exists. Again, there are many ways to look at the facts.

Shoba: I suppose so, but I still don’t think it is relevant. Wangari: I believe it is very relevant, which is why I as a Christian need to pause and

make an apology. Shoba: What for? Wangari: You see, in Jesus, the world is supposed to find freedom and liberation, not

oppression. The Christian is supposed to enjoy God’s creation, and that includes the multiple cultures and people of the world. We are supposed to be one, united across culture and ethnicity with Jesus as our centre. He loved us enough to die for us and we are supposed to point to him so that the world can see the truth about God and his love. However, we Christians tried to ‚possess‛ the absolute truth and make others submit to it, yet Jesus is not interested in domination and control. He never intended belief in him to be forced upon people, but rather to draw people to himself because of his great love and so that they would love him with all their heart. We have often presented a picture of Jesus that is very far from the truth and oppressed others in his name. Many times, Christians have been responsible for leading people away from Jesus by failing to appreciate their thirst for God. Jesus is very different though, and it is very sad to think about how

79

we have failed, and I am sorry about that. Even I sometimes come off as having superior knowledge, and if I have done so in the past, or even just now, I really am sorry.

Shoba: Thank you for that. I accept your apology on behalf of others who may have needed to hear it.

Wangari: And furthermore, even though I stand here apologising for what I and others have done I realize that I cannot live up to my sincere intensions to live a perfect life in the future either. We Christians will indeed wrong others as long as this world stands. That is why our ultimate model should not be ourselves but Jesus. He lived the life that we all seek to live. He loved with the perfect love that we are striving to show. I hope you will bear with me also in the future when I do not live up to Jesus’ standards of living.

Shoba: My goodness, I don’t expect you to be perfect. Of course I will bear with you. Wangari: Let me ask you some silly questions. May I? Shoba: Sure. Wangari: How certain are you that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation and to

God? Shoba: I guess I’m pretty certain that there are many paths to God. The mere existence of

so many religions makes nonsense of Christianity’s exclusive claims. Wangari: That may be the most interesting thing you have said so far. Shoba: How so? Because I don’t think the world can be adequately explained by your

exclusive belief? Wangari: No, more because of the reason you believe so. We just agreed that the

evidence could be interpreted in different ways. Shoba: Yes, but it does not make sense to me to exclude all people who differ from my

religious belief. I think we humans will have better chances to arrive at truth if we dialogue in order to move closer to each other and emphasize what we have in common. Eventually we will be sharing in the complete unity in the one being.

Wangari: Why would you think that it is so? Shoba: Because the ultimate goal of the universe is unity, the one. We all have part of

that divine element within ourselves, so when we realize that this is the true nature of the world we will stop disagreeing. In fact, our disagreement is just an illusion.

Wangari: I get your point, but it does not really answer the question why you believe it, only that you believe it.

Shoba: But if we both share in the one unity then it must follow that our disagreement is essentially an illusion. It is very reasonable to draw that conclusion.

Wangari: It is a very interesting point of view, but I do not see the rationality behind your assertion. Here is my question put another way. If I was to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is the only way to God, would you be willing to change your perspective and close the door on all other options and become a Christian?

Shoba: No. I don’t even see how that could happen. But in any case, it would be the sort of change that is not easily made.

80

Wangari: May I ask you another silly question? Shoba: Why not? Go ahead. Wangari: There are tens of thousands of studies of Christianity and other religions that

have been published over the years. What percentage of these studies would you say you have read and are basing your position on?

Shoba: I might be familiar with 5% of the studies. But even the most knowledgeable professor would not know everything on the field.

Wangari: Is it not possible that in the overwhelming amount of studies about Christianity and other world religions that you admit you don’t know there could be overwhelming proof that Jesus is the only saviour?

Shoba: It’s possible, but I doubt it. Wangari: That is an honest answer, but you see the implications of believing a certain way

based on only 5% of the facts. Not only would you not be convinced even if all of the facts of the universe would be put before you, but I must humbly say that I don’t think it’s even possible for you to change from your current position and embrace the Christian position.

Shoba: I am free to believe whatever I want! Wangari: Perhaps, but you have just revealed to me by your answers to my silly questions

how deeply embedded your position on religious pluralism is with an underlying story of reality that is antithetical to the Christian story that I have discovered through an encounter with Christ.

Shoba: But surely on the basis of that argument, we are on the same boat. You cannot claim to have 100% of the facts either.

Wangari: No, I do not, and I wouldn’t dare make such a claim. My basis for certainty comes from a very different and reliable source. You do see however, that based on the facts, your religious tolerance is actually an exclusive belief system?

Shoba: No I don’t. I tolerate all religions as being different expressions of the search for God. I am not excluding anyone.

Wangari: Excluding everyone else is exactly what you are doing, by basing your beliefs on your own religious faith rather than the facts.

Shoba: How so? Wangari: I’m certain you are familiar with the story of the blind men—I don’t remember

how many—who were told to describe an elephant but gave different answers because they were touching different parts of the elephant? They came to different conclusions because of what they felt when they touched the different parts, and their limited perspective led them to say completely different things about what an elephant is.

Shoba: Yes. It is a great one for illustrating how God is the same though described variously by different religions.

Wangari: Okay. And then there was a king, who was watching the scene. Pluralism proposes itself to be that king, standing above the situation, looking at it, seeing the ‚truth‛. It asks all religions to accept that they are the same thing without accommodating the significant differences that exist between them. Saying that

81

Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe in the same God implies that a finite human can know what the infinite God is truly like. This is the claim of all of us caught in a non-Christian story of reality. We all pretend to be the only ones who see when in fact it is only God who sees the full picture and must impart his gift of sight to us before we can truly know him.

Shoba: Have I claimed to be the only one who sees the truth? Wangari: Yes, by saying that all religions are essentially leading to the same God, you,

from your limited human knowledge, are standing above everyone else, seeing the ‚light‛ about the true nature of their religious beliefs. And by defining the ultimate goal as love and unity you are saying, again from your limited human perspective, that you have seen the true nature of God.

Shoba: But you have the same problem when stating that Christianity is the only truth. Wangari: Not exactly. I am not saying that I have figured the elephant out, that is to say, I

am not trying to figure out who God is and what his characteristics are. As a Christian, I believe that God has spoken to tell us who he is. Put in another way, if the elephant began speaking about himself, wouldn’t we then have secure knowledge about the truth?

Shoba: I guess so. Wangari: That is the difference that Jesus makes. In him we find a firm foundation for the

truth, for making decisions. I can depend on Jesus for knowledge about everything. He is God, the ultimate source of truth. That is such a great help in a world which seems to present me with endless possibilities. It is difficult to be the judge of what we do not know, and I know I cannot figure this out on my own. God in his grace however, showed me the truth of Jesus being the only way to get to know him. That is a choice that we face at some point, a real choice, between Jesus, the real truth and everything else; a life of independence or a life based on a biblical story with the all knowing, supreme God as its author that points to Jesus as the only way to God. I was once trying to navigate a minefield of choices with so little, but God was merciful and he showed me the truth. [she shares her testimony]

For discussion and application

1. What are Shoba’s main arguments for holding to the equality of all religions? What are Wangari’s responses?

2. In light of the general revelation, what is the Christian explanation of why Shoba does not believe in the Christian God?

3. Does Wangari effectively show that Shoba had simply committed herself to just

another exclusive belief system? How does she show that?

82

4. Do you think that Shoba really placed herself as judge over all religions?

APOLOGETIC: Emails between Mary and Wangari on religious pluralism

Dear Mary, I hope you are fine. I am grateful for your kindness and concern about my spiritual growth. Thank you again for teaching me how to use the ABC method in doing Christian apologetics. I am glad to inform you that I have used the method more often. Over the holiday I told you about the Hindu girl in my class called Shoba. I had been really impressed by her kindness and social character. We spent some time together recently, in the course of which, she shared her Hindu faith with me while I shared my Christian faith with her. She believes that Hinduism is one of the true religions and argued strongly that all world religions are universally true and equally valid because they lead to same God. I pointed out that as a Christian I believe that only faith in Jesus Christ leads us to the one true God. There was also our lecturer of Religious Studies who stressed that all world religions are the same and none of them can claim to be better than others. I have attached for you some of the issues that emerged in the discussion with Shoba. Mary, could you shed some light on why people believe that all world religions are equal? I would like to talk to her again some time. Thank you, Wangari. Hello Wangari, I am fine and so glad to hear from you. It is really encouraging to know how you are applying the ABC method to defend Christian faith. It is wonderful to hear about your meeting with Shoba. I know it is not easy, but we manage by trusting in the Living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Bible puts it (Phil. 4:13). In addressing your concerns, let me share with you some information that I think will help you. The issues you raised are very important because they are part of current key issues facing Christian faith. It is widely believed that all religions are equally valid. Religious pluralism rose from the East to replace the age of enlightenment that had failed to explain the reality and existence of life. Alister McGrath, in his book Bridge-Building: Effective Christian Apologetic (1992), notes that John Hicks, a British philosopher, held that all religion, in whatever form, that is defined and practised in sincerity is true. He argued that while

83

religions may differ in respect of holy books or forms of worship or specific ideas about God, they were fairly similar at the root. Hinduism, which is Shoba’s religion, is naturally pluralistic. This can be explained through studying a well known Hindu hymn, ‚Rig Vedic‛, which says that ‚Truth is One,‛ though the sages know it in various ways (Wikipedia Encyclopedia, the free Bible). This explains why Hinduism has no problem in accepting a degree of truth in some world religions. Just as a Hindu worships Vishnu, so anyone can worship Allah or Jesus, since all of them focus on the Ultimate Being. Hinduism’s religious leaders (Sikh Gurus), propagate the message of many paths leading to God and ultimate salvation for all who keep the path of righteousness. The Sikhs’ followers are expected to respect and accept all the leading faiths as possible paths for attaining spiritual enlightenment through studying and practising their teachings. They wish to maintain peace and unity with other faiths to promote a harmonised community. Hinduism believes in one God who is everything and is in everything. It understands the concept of many gods as the variety of ways through which the one God is manifest to various persons. The concept of grace (bhakti) in Hinduism emphasizes a committed relationship of the believer to God. The New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (article on ‚Hinduism‛) explains that this relationship, in which God’s love and mercy are expressed, requires a righteous life, purity, holiness and service to one another. This is seen as the way to ultimate truth. The personal relationship of love between the believer and God has initial parallels with the New Testament images of Christ’s love for the church as his bride. It is held that a believer in a particular religion does not matter but the important issue is how a believer expresses the faith in his daily lifestyle. Although there could be several ways that similarity exists among the world religions, there are distinctions that make Christianity unique and true. In the person of Jesus Christ we have the full revelation of God. In his death and resurrection, Christ has abolished everything that can enslave people. Christians have been renewed in a new divine relationship (Col. 2:13). The Christian vision of the creation and the material world is different from Hinduism’s understanding as in Hinduism, creation is merely an illusion, or maya. The Bible speaks clearly of God creating the whole world and pronouncing it ‚good‛ (Gen. 1–2). Human redemption is initiated by God to bring about a new creation with people who belong to God (Rom. 8:19–22). In the Christian vision, the final goal of the spiritual journey is not to the individual soul’s liberation from circle of rebirth, but a new life in good relationship with God and with a new community worldwide. Christians believe in a God who works through history, a God who changes lives, and a God who raised Jesus from the dead. This is unique to Christianity. The Hindu gods are said to have incarnated, no other world religion has a God who became a man for the specific purpose of taking on the sin of other men and then providing forgiveness. The

84

Bible is clear about the only one true God, who spoke through the prophet Isaiah saying, ‚I am the Lord and there is no other; beside me, there is no God‛ (Isa. 45:5; 43:10; 44:6). The doctrine of redemption is an act of God’s love to restore the fallen creation. The Bible points to Jesus as the only way to reach God, ‚I am the way, the truth, and the life‛ (John 14:6). Therefore, what we believe is very important, despite the many forms of philosophy that emerge to challenge our faith and the truth of Christianity. I hope this will help you. Keep up and feel free to share or ask for any clarification. Yours truly, Mary Dear Mary, Thanks for your clarifications on how Christianity relates to the pluralist view. I’m not sure I can grasp the whole way of reasoning at present. It seems too philosophical and abstract, but at the same time some of it appeals to me. I think it’s because the world is changing so fast in our time due to global communication and access to all sorts of information. In such a world it seems attractive to offer a solution that includes every religion and person. I find many youngsters having ideas similar to that of Shoba in my class, and I actually still find it a bit challenging when so many people honestly believe these things. Thanks, Wangari. Dear Wangari, I believe and trust you are well. It is true that the developments in communication in the past five decades have been very important for this new philosophy to become popular. However, it is actually not quite new even though it may be for us. Let me try and explain some of the tendencies by drawing upon the Eastern religions from where a lot of this inspiration came. Though it may be difficult to understand, I believe we will see the pluralist trends in a greater light if we are aware of the origin of these new ideas. Many people have looked to the East in order to react against what they see as dead reasoning. They feel truth is incomplete when we reason only at a conceptual level. So they try to find other forms of truth in ideals such as peace and love. The eastern religions like Shoba’s Hinduism offer helpful philosophical backgrounds for their search. I’ll mention just a couple of ideas in pluralism that are closely linked with Eastern religious ideas. A more detailed discussion can be found in James Sire’s book from 1976 named The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog.

85

The first important fact is that Eastern religions are more interested in the category of god than in the nature of that God and his revelation to us. Let me explain this point further by giving you an example. Suppose you and Shoba are going on safari to Masai Mara in Kenya to watch the wildlife. After some hours drive you point out in the horizon to a lion in the far distance. ‚Look,‛ you say, ‚can you see the lion out there?‛ Shoba looks in the same direction but replies, ‚Yeah, I see it, but I think it’s a cheetah.‛ You look again but come to the same conclusion that it is a lion and say, ‚I’m sure it’s a lion, are you sure we are looking at the same animal?‛ ‚Yes,‛ she replies, ‚it is that one out there; we are talking about the same animal. But anyway, it doesn’t matter what kind of animal it is.‛ Saying this she ends all discussion, satisfied that you both saw the animal, but you yourself are left with the feeling that you still disagreed about what you saw. You see, this is actually the question we are discussing about God. If we are only talking about the existence of that category called god, then the Christian and the pluralist agree that we are talking about the same god, the Supreme. And this is the only thing the pluralist emphasizes. Shoba was not concerned with what kind of animal you saw, just that it was out there, and that you both saw it. Put another way, in her view you were talking about the same animal. However, for the Christian it is important what it actually was that you saw out there. Shoba was convinced that it was a cheetah, but you were convinced it was a lion, and both of you cannot be right at the same time. Likewise, it is not unimportant for the Christian what God is like and what we believe about him. Jesus cannot both be God (as the Christians believe) and merely a prophet (as the Muslims believe). One of them has to be wrong. Put another way, from this point of view you were not talking about the same animal. This small story helps us to see the difference in the Christian view and the views influenced by the Eastern religions. We Christians are very concerned about the nature of the Supreme Being because it is important for us that we speak the truth about God and how he is. It matters that he is personal, loving, all-knowing, etc. If he is just an impersonal force that the whole universe, including human beings, takes part in as the Hindus say, then we have eliminated the Creator-creature distinction and put ourselves in the place of God. If we are saying that matter is essentially evil, then we have denied the possibility of incarnation as a way to save people, and we have denied the importance of God’s creation. Such differences matter to us as Christians. For the eastern religions it is not important. They only focus on the fact that the Supreme is, and that is truth enough for them. Furthermore, the main reason why it is enough for them is to be found in the fact that what they want to attain is peace, love and unity in the world, which are indeed not bad things to strive for. But the concept of peace, love and unity is for them equivalent to agreement. They find it difficult to retain peace between people who disagree. It is like

86

supposing you and Shoba could not remain friendly towards each other if you had differing opinions about the kind of animal you saw. So they downplay the disagreement for the sake of unity. In Eastern religions, unity is more than just a single reality among many. Indeed, unity, or as they often call it, oneness, is for them the goal of the whole cosmos. The more we realize that we all share in the oneness, the closer we will arrive at meaning and purpose in our lives. According to them, the world does not consist of numerous individuals but of one being in different forms. Therefore, all humans share in the same essence. You see that this idea meets the need of many disillusioned modern people who are tired of religions literally fighting over doctrinal differences. They just want to see peace in the world, so they are led to believe that if the whole cosmos is ultimately one, then all beliefs are equally valid because they are essentially sharing in the same Supreme oneness and moving towards the same goal. Thus for them their wish has come true. If all would follow their argument then the fights between religious standpoints would come to an end. They just fail to realize, as you also pointed out to Shoba, that they have created just another exclusive belief system. So the toleration derived from the concept of unity and peace does only extend to the ones who agree with them in their pluralist view. These two ideas from Eastern religions: the focus on the simple category of god instead of the nature of that god and the concern about cosmological unity, are crucial if we want to understand current post-modern trends such as pluralism. It all seems so different from the way we are used to think, but I hope you will find it beneficial for your understanding of Shoba’s, your lecturer’s and your pluralist peers’ beliefs. Sincerely, Mary Dear Mary, Thank you again. It really helped me understand this issue better. I now feel more prepared to face the challenge from Shoba, and I sincerely hope I can show her that unity and peace can be maintained even though we disagree on some central points about the world. She is indeed a nice person, and I want to stand firm on my belief without going into unconstructive debates with her. I actually have a feeling she will become a very close friend to me. Gratefully, Wangari

For discussion and application

1. How helpful is Mary’s information in order to understand why it is said that all religions are equally the same?

87

2. How would you assess Wangari’s strengths and weaknesses in handling the views of

her religious lecturer? With the information she now has, suggest possible ways, if any, that she could have applied to deal with the idea that all religions are equal with Christianity.

3. What has caused many pluralists to engage with these new philosophical ideas? 4. What does it mean to emphasize ontology and epistemology respectively? How does

it enlighten our evaluation of pluralism and Christianity? 5. How are, in your own view, unity and agreement related to each other?

Reference list McGrath, Gavin, W.C. Campbell-Jack & Stephen Evans, eds., 2006. New Dictionary of Christian

Apologetics, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. McGrath, Alister. 1992. Bridge-Building: Effective Christian Apologetics, Leicester: IVP. Sire, James. 1976. The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, Downers Grove, IL: IVP.

88

chapter 8

CHALLENGE 6: Your God is too white Literature was Wangari’s strongest subject and she had looked forward to her course on African literature on campus. She was eager to learn of how Christianity is connected to the African culture. At orientation, she was introduced to the novels of Ngugi Wa’Thiongo. Wangari had read him in secondary school but the university class was probing his writings more deeply. She was particularly struck by Wa’Thiongo’s idea of ‚homecoming‛. The lecturer, Professor Kajembe, understood this as involving a rejection of Western Christianity, which was too white and foreign. To him, Christianity was simply the religious expression of colonialism. At this point, Wangari had more questions than answers. Could the Gospel really be foreign? Could the Christian God she has believed in all this time be too white? Is there a possibility of being African and Christian at the same time given the claim of the lecturer that Christianity is a foreign religion?

Wangari was thrown into much confusion; she resolved never to go for the semester break without responding to the challenge of Professor Kajembe, who had called for dialogue with any unsatisfied student concerning his support for Wa’Thiongo’s views. Though Wangari was happy with the privilege, she was equally conscious of her limitations in the African literature. She was zealous to meet the professor to explain her own conviction that Christianity is neither a foreign religion nor a tool for colonialism, but a multi-cultural, universal expression of God’s love.

APOLOGETIC: The challenge of culture

To seize the opportunity, Wangari keenly observed the lecturer’s schedule and sought audience with him on Tuesday afternoon, a time the Professor was in the faculty lounge. She knocked at the door! Professor Kajembe: Come in! Wangari: Good afternoon Professor. Sorry to bump into your leisure hour. Professor Kajembe: Oh no, no! Wangari! Tuesday afternoon is always my free time to

relax and converse with friends and people of wits. You are welcome. Wangari: Thank you Prof. Professor Kajembe: Have a seat. How can I help you? Wangari: [pulls a chair and sits down] Thank you sir! Would you mind, if I follow up the

issues you raised in class on Wa’Thiongo and African Christianity? Professor Kajembe: Why not! You are welcome! That is my area of interest. You see,

Wangari, Christianity is purely a white man’s religion and God is just too white for Africans. I strongly concur with Wa’Thiongo’s ideas. As Africans, we have our own

89

religion and we knew God long before Europeans came. Christianity was just a tool of colonialism and a camouflage of Western imperialists.

Wangari: You are right Prof., especially to the extent that the process of Christianization went hand in glove with the colonization of Africa. Conversely, the African concept of God is deistic with strong beliefs in many spirits, unlike the monotheistic approach the Europeans accentuated.

Professor Kajembe: [nods his head] I see we can talk! Traditional Christianity in its historic manifestation has been predominantly western and has demonstrated aggressive, superior, colonial and imperialistic attitudes. The tendency to uphold colonial powers as part of God’s plan has been evident in the missionary agenda. As a matter of fact, it is hard to differentiate the two. This has led to the condemnation of local religion and religious systems in preference for the Christian foreign religion. Our African heritage has been ruined completely.

Wangari: But Prof., I seem to see a missing link in this whole argument. Christianity did not originate from the West. Westerners received Christianity just like Africans did.

Professor Kajembe: Oh no! My mistaken student, history has it that Jesus and Christianity are products of the West.

Wangari: Professor, I beg to differ. Either by accident or design Jesus was first in Africa before his message was taken to Europe.

Professor Kajembe: [smiles] interesting! Wangari, can I hear that version of your story? Wangari: Biblical account puts it that the angel told Joseph to take the little child Jesus to

Egypt at the outbreak of persecution by Herod. In Cairo, they venerate a church built over the place where the Holy Family supposedly dwelt during the sojourn in Egypt. The Ethiopian Eunuch that Philip baptized could equally have contributed to the Gospel of Jesus in Africa long before Europe was evangelized.

Professor Kajembe: But those are still stories from the Christian Bible for those who believe in it.

Wangari: True, Prof., but legends also have it that Ethiopian Christianity dates back to the biblical contacts of the queen of Sheba (queen of the South) who visited Solomon. The constitution of the late emperor Haile Selassie holds Ethiopian kinship and priesthood to be the legitimate continuation of the Solomonic dynasty and Aaronic priesthood. The queen was identified as Makeda of Aksum who conceived a son by Solomon, called Menelik I. Menelik was brought to Jerusalem to be educated, after which Solomon sent him back to Ethiopia. Actually, the Ark of the Covenant, which legends say was secretly taken from the temple in Jerusalem, is still symbolized by an ark below the altar of churches in Ethiopia today. Thus all the descendants of Menelik I in present day Ethiopia are proud of the title ‚Lion of Judah‛ which is Jesus Christ. Is it not possible from all these that there is another view of the claim on Christianity in Africa?

Professor Kajembe: Okay! But you have not convinced me that God is not too white to be relevant to Africans.

Wangari: Perhaps God appears too white because of how Christianity was presented. When the modern missionary enterprise introduced Christianity in Africa, some

90

missionaries manifested their respective national cultures and became agents for the promotion of their empires abroad. Nevertheless God has manifested himself through general revelation in culture, and through special revelation of his son Jesus Christ to all humanity (John 3:16).

Professor Kajembe: Wangari, you are young. Way back when the missionaries came, becoming a Christian meant imitating the ways of living of the missionaries. African evangelists were alienated from their own community and environment. They were taught to look up to the missionary as the one through whom the Africans would get to heaven. I remember one of the missionaries, Dr. Irvin, a Presbyterian who worked in Meru, eastern Kenya, wrote a small book called How to behave. The book was a manual to show how ‚civilized‛ and ‚Christianized‛ Africans should behave in all circumstances to show that they had become civilized and Christians. Wangari, where do you see the relevance of the white God to Africans in all these? Don’t you think we have been brainwashed?

Wangari: I really do not think so Prof. The truth is that Christianity was shaped in Africa by clear minded church fathers like Tertullian, Origen, Anthony and Cyprian in North Africa. Anthony (d. 356) was the father of monasticism and Christian religious piety. Tertullian was a trained lawyer whose skill ‚especially distinguished [him] in Rome.‛ He was described as possessing a ‚sharp and violent talent.‛ Cyprian, on his part, was first a pagan rhetorician who had trusted the gods to protect him from ‚black magic‛ before he became a Christian and put his trust in the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. These were the African church fathers that Africanized the faith from the very beginning. I find it difficult to submit to the claim that all these bold and brave believers were brainwashed by colonialists.

Professor Kajembe: Good. That tribute goes to our own African people who in the midst of the greatest oppression would always seek for their own emancipation and that of the black race. Wangari, it would be difficult to say the same thing on behalf of the missionaries vis-à-vis their relationship with Africans.

Wangari: On the contrary, Prof., Lamin Sanneh held the claim that the real story of Christian enterprise in Africa was not missionary transmission but indigenous reception. There was overwhelming response to the message of Christ from the freed slave colonies of Freetown, Sierra Leone and Monrovia, Liberia. A good example was the effort of Anglican’s first African Bishop, Samuel Ajayi Crowther, a Nigerian who was instrumental to the spread of the Gospel in the South and Niger-Delta areas of Nigeria. We can say the same thing of Afonso I of Congo and Desmond Tutu of South Africa. In fact, it has been claimed that for every missionary in Africa, there were ten African catechists and village evangelists providing local leadership and evangelizing fellow Africans.

Professor Kajembe: So, of what benefit is that reception to the continent? Wangari: Well, I may not be able to recite all, but the benefits in the educational and

health sectors quickly come to mind. Beyond preaching, the missionaries helped to renew the African languages by studying and codifying them. The Bible became the first literature, which with other vernacular literatures brought enlightenment,

91

cultural renewal, and nationalistic awareness that led to socio-political emancipation of the continent. The missionaries brought a drug like penicillin and it greatly reduced the death toll from malaria. There were also benefits in the area of commerce and civilization.

Professor Kajembe: [changing topic] Aha! By the way, Wa’Thiongo’s second novel, The River Between, shows that though Christianity was claimed by the missionaries to be the sure way to heaven, it brought only confusion to the African community. Rather than heal the wounds of disunity and cement the society, it broke the African society into individuals who were concerned with their own salvation and with their own small clubs of ‚saved‛ Christians.

Wangari: In that case, I think your bone of contention Professor, is with missionaries from the West and the way they spread Christianity in Africa rather than with God. To this effect I feel Christianity owes an apology to Africa.

Professor Kajembe: Does that mean that you now agree with me that the European God is out of place in the African context?

Wangari: Actually not. Some missionaries were involved in vernacular translations which affirmed the importance of the African languages and culture. However, with the exception of some missionaries who did not fully represent God, and our inconsistency in following Christ, I must say sorry. As you alluded to Dr.Irvin, many were obsessed with completely changing the Africans in the name of Christianity. This made Christianity seem foreign and many Africans could not relate to it. I apologize for this.

Professor Kajembe: Good of you! Can we then conclude the discussion at this point since we are on the same wavelength?

Wangari: Not really, I think I still need to make some more apologies. Professor Kajembe: More apologies? For what? Wangari: Well, I am also sorry for the approach some missionaries took in presenting the

Gospel. Professor, I must confess that the whole missionary enterprise negated the essentials of culture and contextualization.

Professor Kajembe: Why do you think so? I think their agenda was very clear. Christianity has been expressed as a Euro-American way of life. Africans came to understand the Christian way of life as being identical with the norms of conduct set for them by the missionaries (Mugambi 1992, 1). Contextualization cannot solve anything, given the damage already caused.

Wangari: I don’t think so. Contextualization has to do with the method of communicating the unchanging truth trans-culturally and intra-culturally. The implication is that the process should be different from culture to culture and from people to people. So keeping to the norms of Christianity, one can be an African and a Christian at the same time.

Professor Kajembe: I see the sense in what you are saying, but anyway, Africans believe that it really doesn’t make much difference whether they are Christians or traditionalists. We all have our own paths up the mountain, and we will all meet at the top. But why do you think our cultural heritages were so rubbished as evil?

92

Wangari: I have struggled with this too. I feel sorry for such an attempt. Though the missionaries had great trepidation of syncretism, there was no point in totally discarding the African cultures. It is like throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

Professor Kajembe: Fine, I acknowledge your immense apologies but still consider Wa’Thiongo’s candid and valid views as the only weapon against European mentality on Africa.

Wangari: That is okay Prof, but can I suggest an alternative rejoinder to Wa’Thiong’s views by asking some silly questions?

Professor Kajembe: Silly questions . . . what could they be? Wangari: Professor, out of all the available literature on African Christianity how much

have you read? And how much would someone need to know to be certain that Christianity can’t be true but just a parochial western religion as you say?

Professor Kajembe: Aha! This has been my field of interest; I have exhausted almost all the available literature on African Christianity.

Wangari: Okay, if you don’t mind Prof, in terms of percentage how much would you say you have read?

Professor Kajembe: Hmm . . .! Presumably not less than 60%; you can imagine how informed I am.

Wangari: All right, thanks for the answer. My second silly question is this, don’t you think the 40% of the literature you are yet to consult could contain overwhelming proof of the Christian position that God is universal and Christianity is not a foreign invention?

Professor Kajembe: Precisely, but where does that take us? Wangari: Just this, your claim of absolute certainty does not derive from total facts on this

subject. It is pegged on the 60% knowledge about African Christianity. Such an amount of knowledge does not guarantee absolute certainty. Does it?

Professor Kajembe: Statistically you are correct, but it does not mean that my understanding on the subject is annulled.

Wangari: Okay! If the 40% proves the opposite of your views, will you be willing to abandon your position on God and African Christianity and become a born-again Christian?

Professor Kajembe: Absolutely impossible. My conviction is settled. God is too white and Christianity is a foreign religion. I have no intention whatsoever to yield ground.

Wangari: Exactly! I know you cannot agree. The reason why it is impossible for you to either understand or agree with the Christian position is locked in a story, not on Wa’Thiongo’s views but on a personal non-Christian faith commitment.

Professor Kajembe: Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Your conviction is what holds you, just like mine does.

Wangari: [sighing with relief] Correct! I can now see that this conversation is not a conversation between a Christian protagonist and antagonist. It is between two believers who are pledging their lives on their faith based convictions. My

93

conviction is based on the truth of the universality of God and the Christian faith as put forth in the Bible.

Professor Kajembe: Are you trying to preach to me! You seem to be changing the discussion into a sermon.

Wangari: Not really; but I was once locked in a similar story. I held the same views you now hold, wondering why Christianity was introduced by Europeans and what it meant to Africans given their traditional beliefs. Then I came across the works on Jesus Christ and African theologians like Kwame Bediako, who strongly argued that Christianity is an African religion. This gave me a new way of looking at Christianity. I was opened to truths about the universality of Christianity and God’s great concern for all people. My perception towards God and colonialism changed. I learned to appreciate Christianity in the African context. If you don’t mind Prof., I would like to share my full personal testimony of this encounter with Jesus Christ [she shares her testimony of salvation].

For discussion and application

1. How does Professor Kajembe view God and African Christianity? To what extent could he be said to be justified in his claims considering the missionary enterprise in Africa?

2. Discuss Wangari’s response to Professor Kajembe’s views using the ABC approach to

apologetics? 3. Wangari tries to prove that Christianity cannot exist out of culture, how does she relate

the two? 4. In dealing with the presuppositions underlying Professor Kajembe’s argument, Wangari

appeals to the use of silly questions. Evaluate her strengths and weaknesses.

APOLOGETIC: Email correspondence between Mary and Wangari

Dear Mary, I trust that you are fine, especially at such a time when the term is coming to an end. Based on our previous conversation, I decided to respond to Professor Kajembe’s challenge that he threw to the class. He had invited dialogue from any unsatisfied student

94

to his claim that the Christian God is too white and foreign based on Wa’Thiongo’s views. Attached, please find a copy of the discourse with the Professor. In our dialogue, Professor raised some critical issues that need more clarification. He understood the missionary endeavor as colonial and with no good religious interest to the Africans. He also insisted that Christianity broke up the unity of Africans and rendered the society individualistic. Is it true Mary that it does not matter to Africans whether they are Christians or traditionalists, because we all end up meeting at the top of the mountain regardless of the paths we take? Pertinent to his claim was the argument that as Africans we have our own religion and we knew God long before Europeans came. To him, Christianity was just a tool of colonialism and a camouflage of the Western imperialists. I must confess to you Mary that I am left off-track on some of these assertions. Please shed some light on how to relate missionary work, colonialism and African tradition to being truly born-again. Thank you, Wangari Dear Wangari, I am pleased with your confidence in dialoguing with Professor Kajembe. I will like to respond to the issues you raised. I commend you for sticking to the ABC approach while responding to Prof.’s challenges. About colonialism and Christianity our views are simple, however you need to understand that there are people who tend to condemn anything unfamiliar that comes from foreign culture. But like you rightly pointed out to the Professor, the case of a drug like penicillin that has saved many lives without anybody caring about where it comes from marks the hypocrisy and shallowness that are embedded in some of these arguments against foreign importations to Africa. Africa has not only profited from the missionaries in the domain of education and health as you claimed. In addition, ‚slavery was ended by a moral crusade led by a small group of highborn evangelical zealots‛ from the West. The crusaders did not only end the dreaded trade but equally ‚inaugurated a new era of Christian missions on the African continent‛ (Shaw 2006, 147). However, the dilemma of defending the Christian faith without being associated with ‚sins‛ of colonialism has been a delicate task. Most apologists have had to maintain the delicate balance between being Christians and not being a part of the ‚Christian colonial‛ power. Though the means by which Christianity came to us seemed colonial, we cannot underestimate the strength of clear minded missionaries whose agenda was simply and only Gospel propagation.

95

In his book, The Church in East Africa, Anderson mentions powerful missionaries like Johann Ludwig Krapf who did not mix the power of the gun with that of the Gospel. I recommend that you go through this book to familiarize yourself with the missionary enterprise in East Africa. He clarifies that missionary activities in East Africa were very unique in their emphasis on the civilizing effects of Christianity and involvement in training two hundred freed slaves. The Christian Missionary Society (CMS) involved Christians in humanitarian aid, creating a Christian community and training future African missionaries. A man like David Livingstone was a symbol of the struggle against the slave trade and also a symbol of missionary enterprise. In Bagamoyo, student slaves learned both academic and practical work; couples were helped to marry and were given land to cultivate. Christians who opposed the slave trade include Bishop Mackenzie who liberated slave caravans and fought raiders in Malawi. Missions in Kenya provided refuge and protection for the runaway slaves. Wangari, this portrays the good intention of some of the missionaries. Remember many died and Africa was labeled, ‚the white man’s grave.‛ Probably the only means at that time to get to Africa was through colonial means. On his comment on the idea of God being white, I would say, the fact that Europeans brought Christianity does not make it white. It sounds as absurd as saying if one gives you milk in a black cup the milk will be black. As a matter of fact, Jesus and the twelve apostles were Jews and not Europeans. Jews from Asia did not colonize or Christianize Africa. Moreover, the Professor seems not to be familiar with the extreme labour of those clear minded Africans who Christianized the continent and led the way for the foreign missionaries’ incursion into the interior of Africa. You did mention Samuel Crowther, Afonso I and Desmond Tutu. But there are a lot more. David Koi was Kenya’s first martyr for courageously witnessing Christ to Bwana Isa. He was beheaded by the Arabs. At a very high cost, the rule of Christ was instituted into the ‚individual, social and national life‛ of the kingdoms of Toro, Ankole, Busoga, Teso, and Acholi by Apolo Kivebulaya. Steve Biko, through his ‚Black theology‛ brought God and Christ into partnership with the Black man and his daily problems. Contemporary African Evangelicalism has among its founding fathers and leading contributors such theological voices as the late Byang Kato of Nigeria, late Kwame Bediako of Ghana, Tite Tienou of Burkina Faso and many other promising voices of the 21st century (Shaw 2006, 224, 330). On the challenge of African tradition, it is obvious that true Christianity cannot accommodate unbiblical cultural practises. This is applicable to both the Western world and the African society. Both must be subjected and made submissive to the word of God. Contextualization is simply a respect of text in context and not vice-versa. Well, I will wait for your response if you want me to explain this further. Regards, Mary

96

Dear Mary, Thanks for the information on colonialism, Christianity and African cultures. I appreciate that you have taken me a step higher. However, if I could secure another chance to talk to the Professor, I do not know what I would tell him about the right approach that the missionaries should have employed in bringing the Gospel to Africa. Again you did not handle his claim that Christianity divided Africans rendering them individualists. He claimed that there are many ways to God as he alluded to the many paths that go up to the mountain. I am still interested in hearing more about these concerns. Moreover, how certain can someone be of being truly born-again and truly African at the same time? Sincerely, Wangari Dear Wangari, As I said earlier, the best way the missionaries would have positively impacted Africa was to have considered contextualization of theology. Following the footsteps of Jesus and Paul, contextualization presents the Gospel through the felt needs, worldview and prevailing situations around a person or group of people. Whether considering customs dealing with meat offered to idols or people’s religious perception, leading to his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul, unlike some European missionaries, matched biblical truth with cultural meaningfulness in doing theology of contextualization. Parshall claimed that Paul recognized the superiority of the ‚emic‛ perspective over the ‚etic‛ in cross-cultural mission. In the same way, ‚the needs of the receptor group were uppermost at all times in Jesus thinking and presentation of the Gospel‛ (1980, 31–41). Contextualization is what makes it possible to be both African and born-again at the same time. You see, Wangari, contextualization connects the Gospel to the worldview of the recipients in such a way that they become Disciples of Christ within their own culture. According to Darrel Whiteman (1997, 1–5), contextualization helps to expose and expunge inherent evils that are embedded in culture to make the converts wholly built on Christ the solid rock. A non-contextualized Gospel would leave the deepest needs of people unmet and the result will be a preference for traditional religion. This is what has produced anti-Christian views from the type of Professor Kajembe. Perhaps the missionary has justified fear—the fear of syncretism. Missionaries (and many were of African descent!) observed that the more the need to raise a universally liberated church of Christ that has respect for one another’s culture, the greater the gap between mission agencies’ words and deeds. Their fear is justified in the theology of the African Indigenous Churches. Wangari, have you worshiped in any of the AICs of the prophet/healing movements? They use candles, anointing oil, holy water and other paraphernalia of religion as aids to faith and complements with the blood of Jesus. They are in the opposite extreme of the non-contextualized Gospel. Both extremes leave the African Christians neither truly Africans nor completely Christians by biblical standards.

97

But there is a simple rule to this issue: stop contextualization where syncretism begins. Syncretism comes when scriptural normative is lost in contextualization (Parshall, 1980, 43–53). This is the whole appeal of Charles Kraft (1996, 132–147) for appropriate contextualization in cross-cultural mission. The appropriateness comes with the use of appropriate cultural forms conveying intended cultural meaning. It comes by removing the veil of transplanted meaning to forms. This was the gross error of early missionaries to Africa. Beyond philosophical argument, Professor Kajembe knows, as you and I do, that God is neither white nor black. He is the God of all creation and has created all humanity in his form and image. But realize Wangari, that this same God gives a progressive revelation of himself to humanity. God, in his dealing with Israel has shown what mission and contextualization are all about. He chose their language, experience and events to make himself known and be made known to other cultures in their language and experience. As African Christians, we are to follow these steps of God and the Jews and bring the truth of scriptures to bear on varying cultures and beliefs. This is what the missionaries have attempted to do—and it is what we are all commanded to do (Matt. 28:19–20). It is also the heartbeat of God and the whole essence of the global missionary enterprise. Today, many Africans are preaching to the biggest congregations in the West and former Soviet Republic. The biggest church in North London is pastored by a Nigerian. The same goes for the largest congregation in Ukraine. A lady Kenyan is the pastor of Chicago Redeemed Christian Church of God from Nigeria. Wouldn’t it be absurd for the white congregants in those denominations to claim that God is black and so would not be received as a universal God just because the missionary preachers are from Africa? The fact that the missionary might have used Christianity to undermine the African culture to advance his agenda does not necessarily mean that it is endorsed in the Bible. For example, the Dutch reformed church instituted apartheid in South Africa using a biblical quote from Genesis to say that Ham the son of Noah was the father of Africans. Their argument was that God cursed him and made him a slave because he saw his father’s nakedness. This is an abuse of scripture and does not make Christianity white man’s religion. St. Augustine said, ‚Do not judge a philosophy by its abuse.‛ The abuse by some colonial missionaries does not nullify the acceptance of Christianity in our own cultures. On the relationship between the Christian faith and other religions as co-steps to getting to the mountain of God, I think it is all based on the argument between the exclusive and inclusive approaches to faith. The exclusive approach affirms Jesus Christ as the full and final revelation of God and the only way of salvation. All other religions and their manifestations are perceived to be deviations from the truth; therefore they should be totally rejected. Jesus himself says, ‚I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me‛ (John 14:6). The only problem is that in presenting this view, the missionaries did not make a clear distinction between the Gospel and the culture

98

of Christendom. So the exclusive approach was further developed into a Christ against culture attitude. The inclusive approach attempts to include all religions under the redemptive influence of Jesus Christ. It asserts that non-Christian religions contain elements of not merely natural knowledge of God but also supernatural elements arising out of grace, which is given to humans as a gracious gift on the account of Christ. In his book, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Panikker insists that there exists a meeting point between Hinduism and Christianity and that this point is Christ himself. He argues that following Paul, we may speak not only of the unknown God of the Greeks but also the hidden God of Hinduism. Since he holds that Hinduism has the presence of the unknown Christ within it, Hinduism becomes a legitimate way of salvation; hence salvation for him is found in all other faiths including Christianity and not confided to Christianity. In this approach, Christ and Christianity are no longer seen as the centre of the saving and revealing work of God. They are seen as being ‚in orbit‛, along with other religions around God who is at the centre of the universe of faith. This attempts to put an end to Christian conversion and encourages them to see divine expression of faith in a multi-religious society. You will agree with me that this is anti-biblical and against justification by faith through Christ’s redemptive death alone—‚Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men, by which we must be saved‛ (Acts.4:12). Interestingly, communalism remains the collective philosophy of the African people. The mission station practise of separating believers in Christ apart to train them by the missionaries had both positive and negative effects. Though isolationist in practise, it produced the earliest civil servants and native missionaries to the continent. Christianity has long abandoned that approach in preference for scriptural injunction to live as light and salt in the world as Christ demanded (Matt. 5:13–16). Moreover, the house fellowship system that is now common in the African church holds a special appeal to communal life. In Africa, as in other parts of the world, there are different occasions when the house fellowship members have to stay with the bereaved, provide for families that have been put out of a job, raise funds to pay children’s school fees, and gather to clean the homes of members who fall ill (Cho 1981, 53). (not in reference list) The end result of such communal concern is that every member becomes a missionary to his neighbourhood by ministering to different human needs and serving as agents of revival. This has led to both numerical and spiritual growth of the African city church. I do hope that all these insights will be of great help to you as you continue the ministry of defending the faith of the son of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please feel free to contact me on any issues that may need further clarification. In the Lord’s vineyard, Mary

99

Dear Mary, I am happy with your response. Indeed I am satisfied though still wondering why Christianity can’t just be accepted everywhere without being considered foreign. By the way, do you think many people hold same views with Professor Kajembe? Blessings, Wangari. Dear Wangari, Thank you again for your persistence. It is our responsibility to respond to the philosophy that tends to undermine the Christian faith. Yet, ‚the problem with the Christian faith is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but it has been found difficult and left untried.‛ Source? This, I suppose, is the problem of Prof. Kajembe and you must not be too surprised that you may meet more who hold his conviction. In number, they may be in the minority, but in attention they may appear to be many because they are vocal and hold commanding positions, especially in academia. Unfortunately, hardly do Christian professors speak out so forcefully to air their views in secular gatherings as the non-Christians do. Truly yours, Mary Dear Mary, I am very happy with your last email. What approach do you think will be applicable in helping Professor Kajembe understand the Christian faith from an African perspective? What should be the response to his underlying presuppositions? I do hope you will help me again. Sorry for my persistence, Wangari Dear Wangari, The claim that Christianity is fundamentally irrational from Professor Kajembe’s arguments on Wa’Thiongo’s ideas is from a shaky foundation. They cannot be considered true since his ultimate foundation of rationality is not proven. His assumption that the God of the Bible is white is ultimately based on blind chance. I recommend that you go through Lamin Sanneh’s book, Translating the Message, which examines the consequences of scriptural translatability, with modern Africa as the main focus. He shows the deeper connections between Bible translation and related issues such as cultural self-understanding, vernacular pride, social awakening, religious renewal, cross-cultural dialogue, transmission and recipiency, reciprocity in mission, and in a provisional way

100

what light the comparative Islamic example might throw on the subject. Such people fought for the Christianization of Africa. Another good resource is Kwame Bediako’s book Christianity in Africa, which discusses whether Christianity is suited for Africa. He confirms that churches begun by western influence and indigenous African initiative remain important religious and social institutions in their own right which can not be ignored. African Christian leaders of thought cannot remain content with the unmistakable reality of the Christian faith in the African life. The task before us is the Africanisation of Christian experience, since African tradition has been Christianized. The former would deal with resolving an intellectual problem, how African Christianity would employ Christian tools and mend the torn fabric of African identity and hopefully point out the way towards the emergence of a fuller and unfettered African humanity and personality. The latter was largely concerned with a basically religious problem. Christianity can never become an adequate frame of reference for the full expression of African ideals of life because of the nature of its history in Africa. To drive the point home, he asserts that the 19th century dilemma was African identity. He defends the missionary enterprise that claims the image of Africa and Africans being inherently inferior to Europe and Europeans was not orchestrated by them. Rather, it was a product of colonial and western imperialism. Christ, for the Africans, may be revealed in their context of culture as the fullness that fills all things on every occasion of heightened feeling. He refereed to the contemporary missionary activity in Ghana, observing a shift from the indigenous activities to new European activities. There was an assumption that there was nothing valuable in African cultural and religious heritage, and that the African background must be ignored or abandoned by any African who chose to become a Christian. This led to the conclusion that the European cultural tradition by virtue of its long influence by Christianity, was itself Christian, and African culture was pagan, heathen and primitive. This has led to the hesitation and widespread refusal by missionaries and African Christians to take African religions seriously, for fear of syncretism. Many Christians have erroneously assumed that Christianity as it was introduced by the missionary enterprise was pure, without any non-Christian elements from pagan Europe. Many of the customs now accepted as Christian, such as Easter, Christmas and Christian marriage were developed in Europe through a process of Christianizing pagan customs. The fixing of Christmas and Easter calendars, for example, was determined more by European pagan religious customs than by historical considerations of the birth and crucifixion of Jesus. In that sense, Christianity was full of syncretism even before it reached East Africa through the missionary enterprise (Mugambi 1992, 5–6). However, it is most important to keep defending the faith ‚that was once for all entrusted to the saints‛ (Jude 3). In Christ, Mary

101

For discussion and application

1. Mary responds to Wangari’s dilemma on the issue of colonialism and Christianity by appealing to favourable African literatures and church historical evidences. How sufficient are these points to negate Professor Kajembe’s claims?

2. ‚Contextualization is what makes it possible to be both African and born-again at the

same time.‛ What are the strengths and weaknesses in Mary’s presentation of culture and contextualization? What contributions would you make to her arguments?

3. To what extent can we truly accept Mary’s argument that the present shift in

Christendom has justified the claim that God is neither white nor black? 4. How does Mary prove that Christianity has strengthened African communality as

opposed to Prof. Kajembe’s claim that Christianity brought individualism in Africa?

Reference list Aghamkar, A. 2006. ‚Christian Apologetics in the Non-Western World‛. In New Dictionary of

Christian Apologetics. W. C. Campbell-Jack, Gavin McGrath, Stephen Evans (editors), Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

Baur, John. 1994. 2000 Years of Christianity in Africa: An African church history. Nairobi, Kenya:

Paulines Publications Africa. Cole, Babajide V. 1979. A Biblical Approach to Contextualisation of Theology. MTh. Thesis. Dallas:

Dallas Theological Seminary. Gilliland, Dean S. ed. 1989. The Word Among Us. (Arthur F. Glasser’s article on Old Testament

Contextualization: Revelation and its Environment.: Word Publishing. Hiebert, Paul G. 1994. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker

Books.

102

Kraft, Charles H. 1996. Anthropology for Christian Witness. New York: Orbis Books, Mary Knoll. Mugambi, J.N.K. 1992. Critiques of Christianity in African Literature. Nairobi: East African

Educational Publishers. Parshall, Phil. 1980. New Paths in Muslim Evangelization. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Shaw, Mark. 1996. The Kingdom of God in Africa. Katunayake: New Life Lit. (Pvt.) Ltd. Stott J. & R.T. Coote. ed.1977. Gospel & Culture. Pasadena: William Carey Library. Whiteman Darrell L. 1997. Contextualization: The theory, the gap, the challenge. International

Bulleting of Missionary Research.

103

104

chapter 9

CONCLUSION: Final thoughts on doing apologetics in Africa

Wangari finished her first year of university with her faith stronger than when she went in. She had learned much about what it means to defend the faith. She wrote down a list of the key things she had learned this year that had strengthened her faith and witness:

1. She had learned that there were many ways to defend the faith including evidentialism, fideism and presuppositionalism.

2. She understood what Romans 1:18ff taught about the mind of the non-Christian and how its guilt over sin and shame produced the habit of God suppression even though the image of God within humanity cannot be erased.

3. She had learned that the non-Christian is often most vulnerable at the level of the stories about god and reality they used to suppress the truth about the true and living God.

4. She saw how she could use the strengths of the three apologetic methods to weave together a response to non-Christian challenges that could shake the non-Christian foundations and open up a chance to share the Gospel.

5. She felt that Mary’s ABC method had worked for her and had helped her not only meet the challenges posed by non-Christians but had also given her the ability to challenge them about their habit of certainty and the irrational foundation of chance that contradicts that habit of certainty if one has accepted a non-Christian worldview that does not hold to total sovereignty of God in all areas, including the realm of logic and knowledge. When chance is supreme, irrationality is supreme. But if our rationality is based on an ultimate irrationality how can we be logically certain about anything? Wouldn’t our habit of certainty be absurd?

6. She felt more confident that only the Christian position provided a logical basis of logic and a certain foundation for certainty because only the Christian position consistently based all thinking and truth on an absolute and personal God of the Bible with comprehensive knowledge about all things. God has the habit of certainty because he knows 100% of all there is to know about everything. No wonder that we who were created in his image have been given that habit of certainty. She now knew how to challenge the fatal contradiction of non-Christian reasoning by showing that only the Christian has a rational base for rationality and that rational objections to the Christian faith are really faith objections generated by the God suppressing non-Christian stories of the challenger.

7. Wangari felt that she could use this argument to handle almost all rational objections against the Christian faith.

105

But one thing continued to bother her. Doubts about the truth of Christianity seemed

so widespread at the University. If her faith was true, why was doubt and unbelief so pervasive among the most educated? This bothered her so much that she wrote to Mary asking for some help with this issue. She received an email back from Mary but all the email contained was the following story:

The Jeweler and the King

here once was a jeweler who worked for a great king. The jeweler made beautiful golden eggs with crosses on them. They were exquisite in their detail and worth.

Nobles from all over the kingdom came to him to buy his jeweled eggs. ‚The king will reward you richly for your good work,‛ the nobles would say. The jeweler often wondered about these words. He had never met the king but everybody in the village lived and worked for the king and had no doubt about his existence. He remembered how, as a boy, he had asked his parents where the king lived. They had answered that he lived at the end of the farthest star, about a hundred miles away. But, more importantly, they told him, that the king also lived in their hearts. He had accepted this as a boy but now that he was a man he began to doubt that his parents’ words were true. One of the reasons that he doubted his parents’ words was the whole issue of rewards and punishments. All the people in the village said that the king rewarded his citizens who did what was right but punished those subjects who did what was wrong. The jeweler began to doubt if this was so because many of the best people in the village suffered the most. Their babies died, or they lost limbs in an accident or their marriages turned out badly. They suffered much but claimed that their rewards were inward. The jeweler didn't care much for inward rewards. When he looked at the villains and law breakers of the town he noticed that while some of them suffered, many of them got away with their wicked deeds and some of them became quite rich. The jeweler decided that the king did not exist because the major proof of his existence—the rewards and punishments that he allegedly dispensed—were too random to point to any higher moral power. The jeweler thus embarked on a life of fame and pleasure—living now only for himself instead of the fairy tale king. He stole the hearts of other men's wives. Instead of being punished, people said that he was such a great artist and so full of love that he couldn't confine his heart to just one woman. Even the most beautiful woman in the village, Marie, the mayor's wife, left her husband and came to live with him. And so he was praised for his many extramarital affairs.

T

106

His eggs and crosses became even more beautiful and famous. They sold for unimaginable prices and the jeweler soon became the wealthiest man in the village. People began writing books about him and many in the village thought that the jeweler was now even more famous than the king. Thus the jeweler found that the more he sinned against the king the more pleasure, wealth and fame came his way. He was now sure that no king, such as his parents taught, existed. He began to see himself as the only king in his life. He himself was the fountain of whatever rewards he could hope for or whatever punishments might come. One day when he was working on a golden egg a strange thing happened. As he put the finishing touches on this egg, possibly the most beautiful that he had ever done, he lost all desire to be a jeweler. That which had brought him such joy now filled him with disgust and weariness. Yet so great was the demand for his works that he was forced to keep producing the eggs. His misery deepened as his love for his vocation evaporated. When he went home in the evening he poured his heart out to Marie about his lack of satisfaction in his work. Then he became weary of even talking to her. One day when he came home he found her dead. His deepest emotion was that of relief. And so the jeweler spent his days. As his life filled with women and fame, his soul filled with indifference and boredom. When the hour of his own death came he thought back to the fairy tales about a mythical king that his parents had told him about who rewarded the faithful and punished the unfaithful. He remembered how much joy the stories of the king had brought to their humble existence. As he thought about their stories he made a startling discovery. He realized that the king had in fact punished him for his sins but he was too dull to realize the form that the punishment would take. He realized that the loss of joy in the king was the greatest punishment that anyone could ever experience for it slowly eroded one’s joy in everything else. He began to see that unbelief itself was the punishment for betraying the king. Since the king was the source of all pleasure and treasure, even among the rebels like him, to be estranged from the king meant the eventual drying up of all joy in life. Because the loss of joy, the shriveling of the capacity to enjoy life was not just an accident but a punishment, it testified to the reality of the king. And then, as he breathed his last, he saw the truth that had eluded him all his life: One of the greatest proofs of the king's existence was unbelief itself. (With apologies to Graham Greene)

107

Wangari read over this parable many times and struggled to understand what it was that Mary was trying to tell her. She finally wrote to Mary to ask for some explanation. Mary replied with a brief email: Dear Wangari, You have come far this year in learning how to strengthen your own faith and help challenge the faith of non-Christians by using the ABC method skillfully. Yet one final lesson is needed. You must remember that the truth that we are trying to defend is ultimately the truth of the Christian grand narrative. Jesus and his word have told us that the real story of reality is the story of a Great and sovereign God who built a perfect world that fell into total rebellion in every area, only to be rescued and restored by his only son who came in the middle of the story to begin the work of restoration and will come at the end of the story to perfect that work. You are bothered that so many in the university seem to doubt this story. We now know why they doubt it. They have succumbed to other grand narratives that they use to suppress the truth about God. But notice this. Romans 1 says that this problem of God suppression is universal. Note also Romans 3:23 ‚All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.‛ Do you not see the implications of this for the truth of the Christian story? If our grand narrative is a 4 act drama in which Act 2 is the fall of every person into delusional alternatives to the Christian story then the very fact of pervasive doubt confirms the truth of the Christian story of reality. In other words, if people did not challenge Christian truth, then it would be hard to believe in the truth of Christianity. The Christian story perfectly explains the kind of world we live in. Thus the last line in the parable: ‚One of the greatest proofs of the king’s existence was unbelief itself.‛ But let me not end on such a negative and polemical note. The best way to defend the Christian story is to love it. I end with the words of Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French Christian apologist: ‚In these times when lies abound and truth is so obscure, we must love the truth in order to know it.‛ Yours in Christ, Mary

For discussion and application

1. Look at the list of the lessons Wangari learned from Mary about defending the faith. Which items on this list have you learned? Which have been the most valuable lessons? Which do you have yet to learn? What things have you learned that are not on Wangari’s list?

108

2. Have you ever been bothered by the fact that many educated people seem to doubt the Christian faith? How serious an issue is this for you? Why did it bother Wangari so much?

3. In the parable, what are the reasons why the jeweler loses his faith in the king? How

important is the issue of earthly rewards and punishments in sensing God's reality? 4. What caused the loss of meaning in work and pleasure in life? Why does the jeweler

see this as a punishment from the king?

5. Do you agree or disagree with the jeweler's deathbed discovery that unbelief is one of the greatest proofs of the existence of God? How did Mary explain this? How does it reflect Romans 1:18ff?

6. How does this story echo the main themes and thrusts of this workbook? Review the

approach to apologetics developed in this book. What have been the most important lessons of the ABC method of apologetics for you personally?

7. What particular intellectual challenges in this book demand your further study? What are some of the next steps you need to take to grow as a defender of the faith?