Brett Kunkle

Christians Need Apologetics

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:49:26 -0800

“Just some ordinary conversation over dinner.” At least, that’s how my host described this event. In January, I was invited to have dinner with a couple of dads and their sons to facilitate a discussion on the problem of evil. It was a spur-of-the-moment request and details were a bit fuzzy, so I met my host Jon 30 minutes prior to talk specifics. He informed me that not only would Christian dads and sons participate, but his 60-year old parents, both skeptics of Christianity, would join us as well. That night’s conversation turned out to be exceptional. Why? Because of apologetics.

For too long, apologetics has been given a bad rap. Too many Christian voices point to a few poor apologetic examples, extrapolate them to every apologist and apologetic encounter, and then dismiss the entire enterprise. But in doing so, Christians abandon one of our greatest tools to engage the world for Christ. My recent conversation demonstrates why.

(1) It was intelligent. Any robust discussion of the problem of evil will include a host of issues. We covered almost all of them, exploring objective and subjective views of morality, the definition of evil, human freedom, moral intuitions, the soul, and more. It was a rational, well-informed dialogue between Christians and Jon’s skeptical parents. And it was my apologetic training that enabled me to lead an intelligent discussion.

(2) It was gracious. The apologists I know take I Peter 3:15 seriously. All of it. We are not to be defensive with our defense, but gracious. Apologetics can give you confidence that what you believe is actually true and reasonable. That kind confidence can keep you from getting defensive. And when you’re not defensive, you can relax, give others space to question and doubt, and even enjoy the challenge of a tough question. My apologetic training has done just that for me.

That night there were no raised voices. No frustration or irritation. Not a hint of defensiveness. Rather, the entire group was cool, calm, and collected. Yes, this occurred in the context of a religious discussion, where participants held diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jon’s parents raised serious intellectual challenges to God from evil, but heard a defense that was gentle and respectful.

(3) It was patient. Beforehand, Jon was clear with his instructions to me. He wanted a methodical discussion, walking carefully through the arguments and objections. No jumping to unjustified conclusions. And there was no pressure to “close the deal.” Rather, his stated goal was to leave a stone in his parent’s shoes, an approach he picked up from Stand to Reason. He was patient with their skepticism, knowing there were many barriers to be removed before Jesus ever came into view. Apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it this way:

“The longer I am in this work, the more I realize that intellectual struggles are merely the hazardous waste of life, blocking the heart from truth. The task of apologetics is to carefully remove that hazardous material and keep it from igniting into a destructive fire. Once that is done, the way to the heart is always through the way of the Cross, God’s love for each and every one of us.”

I wanted to use apologetics to move some of that hazardous material away from Jon’s parents’ hearts, but my apologetic training helped me to understand this approach takes time and requires patience. That night, his parents were able to air a few of their intellectual grievances, which were met with listening ears and patient answers.

When you pay careful attention to what most Christian apologists are saying today and you avoid the temptation to demonize the entire apologetic endeavor because of one or two bad examples, you’ll be open to one of the great tools the Church has employed for 2,000 years. When I teach apologetics, this is the approach I commend. It’s the Stand to Reason way, the Ambassador’s way. Of course, it’s always nice to be reminded it’s also an effective way.

What was the result of that night’s intelligent, gracious, and patient conversation? As we said our goodbyes after dinner, Jon’s skeptical dad shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and with a smile said, “Let’s do this again.”

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Brett Kunkle — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:00:00 -0700

Is the Bible intolerant? That was the question Nathan Hansen asked me to answer for hundreds of students and adults recently. Three years ago, Nathan, Snohomish Community Church’s innovative youth pastor, created Jesus University, a five-day youth conference in the Seattle area. During the day, students serve their community. At night, the community is invited to come hear top Christian bands.

But before the bands play, Nathan has a Christian apologist address a tough question for an hour, followed by 30 minutes of Q & A. The big-name bands draw thousands of people throughout the week, but Nathan ensures they’re given more than music. They get an intelligent yet gracious defense of Christianity. And our culture desperately needs some clear thinking when it comes to the topic of tolerance.

Homophobic. Racist. Chauvinistic. Bigoted. Intolerant. Christians are bullied with this kind of name-calling all the time. Rather than cower in a corner, we can counter with clear thinking. First, before we move the conversation forward we need to define terms. When charged with intolerance, we need to ask a simple clarifying question, “What do you mean by that?” and then listen carefully to the answer. Most challengers will offer some version of the contemporary view of tolerance. “You think you’re right and everyone else is wrong and that’s intolerant.” Or, “All religious views are equally valid and none should be considered better.” Only then are we ready to respond in a helpful way.

Contemporary tolerance is self-contradictory. The “you think you’re right and others are wrong” version is offered as a corrective to our views. However, a corrective is only given when one thinks their view is right and another view is wrong. In the very act of correcting Christians, they do what they say we shouldn’t do. So according to their own definition, they turn out to be the very thing they charge Christians with being: intolerant.

The “all views are equally valid” version of tolerance is no better. I put up some statements for students at Jesus U and asked if they were okay with them. For example, “Parents who abuse their children in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed to do so.” Of course, students objected. But I pointed out if the contemporary version of tolerance is correct, then we’re obligated to tolerate this view regarding child abuse. All views are equally valid and this is a view, isn’t it? Students frowned, knowing something was wrong.

I confirmed their suspicions by asking them if the contemporary belief about tolerance is itself a view. Yes it is and therefore, the criterion of the view applies to itself. It is a view that should not be considered better than other views. However, it’s being offered as the correct version of tolerance. But that’s contradictory because there’s no such thing as a correct version if all views are equally valid. The contemporary view of tolerance turns out to be intolerant.

Students got it. A few minutes of clear thinking unraveled years of cultural confusion on tolerance. Afterward, I was able to restore the classical meaning of tolerance: all people are equal, all views are not. We are to treat everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their disagreements because all people are made in the image of God. However, we must put truth at the forefront, always asking what views are true because falsehood in our own lives should never be tolerated.

The church needs a new generation of Christians who will stand courageously for the truth, even as they are called names like intolerant or bigot. Clear thinking is an important first step.

Intellectual Skepticism & Doubt in our Youth

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:07:43 -0700

Recently, pollsters have confirmed what many of us already know: a large number of Christian students leave the church once they graduate from high school. Barna has the number at 61%. Lifeway has it at 70%. Even if we take Barna's lower number and then subtract another 10% just to be conservative, we're still left with a situation where we are losing half our kids.

But let's NOT be conservative because it looks like the situation could be worse. According to political scientists Robert Putman (Harvard) and David Campbell (Notre Dame) in their book, American Grace, young Americans are dropping out of religion at a rate 5-6 times the historic rate (30-40% have no religion today versus 5-10% a generation ago). The Church definitely has a challenge on its hands.

So what are the causes? Well, there are a number of reasons young people leave. Moral reasons. Sociological reasons. But it seems clear they also leave for intellectual reasons (Drew Dyck has some important thoughts on the interplay between the reasons young people give for leaving). In his book Soul Searching, sociologist Christian Smith found that students reported leaving the religion of their upbringing primarily due to "intellectual skepticism and doubt." Certainly Christian students who cannot give a reason for their hope in Christ to everyone who asks (I Peter 3:15) will be ill-equipped to deal with the intellectual minefield that is the modern secular college campus.

Here's part of my solution: start exposing our Christian students BEFORE they leave for college. Let's bring up their doubts BEFORE they do and then create a safe place to talk about those doubts. Recently, I did just that at a local Christian high school in Southern California by pretending to be an atheist college professor. You can see how the Christians students did, as I recorded the dialogue:

Of course, these students knew they fared poorly, giving themselves a failing grade. But here's the key: AFTERWARDS, they're ready to be trained. Once they see for themselves how ill-equipped they are, they're more open to their real need for serious training and discipleship of the mind. And then we need to do our part to inoculate them from the false ideas that permeate our culture.

The Problem of Evil is Everyone's Problem

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:52:43 -0700

The Japan tsunami inevitably raises profound questions about God and evil. But in this discussion, it is important to realize every worldview, not just Christianity, must explain evil. Christians are often on the defense with regards to this objection, yet the tables can be turned on the atheist, with his naturalistic worldview in tow. Given naturalism, what is evil and how does the atheist make sense of it?  

Famous British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell once commented, "No one can believe in a good God if they've sat at the bedside of a dying child." Now, I agree that sitting at the bedside of a dying child is a heart-wrenching situation not to be treated simplistically or in a cavalier manner. Providing pat answers and quoting Romans 8:28 over and over will not suffice. But what of Russell'sresponse? What can the atheist say to the dying child? Or to the Japanese parents whose child disappeared in the flood waters?

"In the grand scheme of the universe your suffering is utterly meaningless--life and all that comes with it has no transcendent meaning or value."
"Your suffering is completely pointless since there is no purpose to any of this anyway."
"Fortunately, you will soon die and return to dust."
"Take heart, you will soon pop out of existence forever and your suffering will be over."
"Stuff like tsunamis just happen."
"Bummer."

 Or let's try the actual words of Russell:

"Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure dooms falls pitiless and dark."
"Blind to good and evil...omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way."
"...no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave..."
"...all the labours 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..."
"Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins..."

 Hmmm...not too comforting in the face of real tragedy & sorrow. Not only does atheism lack the intellectual resources to account for evil, it also lacks the emotional/psychological resources to bring hope and redemption to a world corrupted by both moral and natural evil. Russell's own words certainly clarify the absurdity of life without God.

Make no mistake, the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christianity--it is a problem for all worldviews because evil is fundamental to our human experience. If any worldview is to be considered plausible it must provide us with the intellectual and existential resources to deal with this issue.

The Euthyphro Dilemma: God is Not Good or God is Not Sovereign

Brett Kunkle — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:16:11 -0800

Over at the STR Place blog, we've been posting skeptical challenges to Christianity every Tuesday. This week, we posted the following challenge:

Why does God say something is good? There are only two possibilities. First, it could be that a thing (or an action) is good just because God says it is. In other words, He declares something to be good, and therefore it’s good, and we should do it. He could have just as easily declared it to be bad, and then it wouldn’t be “right” for us to do it. But if it’s arbitrary, it’s not really good, is it?

The second possibility is that God knows that a thing actually is good, so He says it’s good. But if that’s the case, then God is using another standard by which He can recognize what “good” is. That would mean there’s a standard above God, meaning there’s something greater than God that He has to conform to in order to be good.

Which do you choose?

Philosophers refer to this as the "Euthyphro Dilemma" and it's a direct challenge to God as the grounding of morality. Here's my answer to the challenge:

Is Jesus the Only Way?

Brett Kunkle — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:00:00 -0800

“Jesus is the only way to God” may be the most controversial claim of Christianity, so we had better have good reason for it. And I think we do.

What does Jesus say? Let’s start with Jesus. We certainly don’t want to claim something for him that he wouldn’t claim for himself. If the Gospels are historically reliable (and we have overwhelming evidence they are), then we have Jesus’ own words and we discover he claims to be the only way to God. In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus doesn’t leave much room for debate. Indeed, Jesus says whoever rejects him “rejects the One who sent [him]” (Luke 10:16). So according to Jesus, there’s no other path to God. If you think highly of Jesus, eventually you have to grapple with his claims about himself.

Is Jesus special? Those who claim all religions are basically the same simply haven’t studied them closely. Religions make contradictory claims. Hinduism says God is an impersonal force while Christianity teaches God is a personal being. Both cannot be right. Also, Jesus is completely unique among the religions of the world. Jesus’ disciples taught that Jesus is God (John 1:1, Philippians 2:5-7) because Jesus claimed that himself (Mark 14:61-64, John 10:30-34). No other founder of a major world religion claimed to be God. Now, Jesus was either right or wrong and he provided a standard to verify his claims. Jesus said His resurrection from the dead would be confirmation (Matthew 12:38-42, Mark 14:28). Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, is still in his grave. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is still in his grave. But not Jesus. He is risen, providing the ultimate evidence for the truth of his unique claims.

Why is Jesus the only way? We are conditioned by our culture to think of religion as a personal preference. We are told, “You’ve got yours, I’ve got mine and there’s no right one.” So, to claim Jesus is the only way to God is like claiming chocolate ice cream is the one true flavor. It sounds absurd. However, preference is the wrong category for religious truth, ice cream the wrong analogy.

Instead, we ought to think of religion the way we think of medicine. Each religion recognizes the world is sick and offers its own diagnosis, just as a doctor would. In addition, each religion offers a potential cure. And we don’t choose medicine like we choose dessert. It would be absurd to say, “Doctor, I prefer aspirin over chemotherapy.” Instead, we want to know what’s true. Which cure actually works. When you examine the diagnosis and cures offered by other religions, you discover they differ radically from Christianity.

In John 8:24, Jesus says “if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Here Jesus offers both diagnosis and cure. Sin is the disease we’re all infected with and Jesus is the cure. So, why is Jesus the only way? Because Jesus is the only medicine that can cure the spiritual disease—sin—that is killing us.

*Used with permission. This article first appeared in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students published by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. For information, click here.

What is Apologetics?

Brett Kunkle — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:08:06 -0800

I Peter 3:15 says to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” Simply put, that’s apologetics. But in this short description, we discover three important details.

First, doing apologetics means playing defense. The Greek word for “defense” is apologia, from which we get the word “apologetics.” Think about a football game. At any time during the game, one team is trying to score (the offense) while the other is trying to stop them (the defense). If your team has a really bad defense, you’ll get blown away. Similarly, maybe you’ve been roughed up by some really tough objections to Christianity. You’ve heard the challenges before. “How can a good God allow suffering?” “The Bible is full of errors.” “Jesus can’t be the only way to God.” Apologetics helps us defend Christianity against tough questions.

Second, doing apologetics means playing offense. Back to the football analogy. A good defense is vital but you can’t win if you don’t score. The offense must advance the ball to get a touchdown. In the same way, apologetics attempts to give a “reason” for our hope by advancing arguments in favor of Christianity. We offer evidence for God’s existence, reasons to trust the Bible, and arguments for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. By playing offense, we give others good reason to think Christianity is true.

Third, doing apologetics means giving hope. What are you defending and giving evidence for? “The hope that is in you.” Ultimately, apologetics points people to our hope, Jesus himself. That’s why “we demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). Objections raised against Jesus must be demolished. But notice something. The Bible doesn’t say we demolish people. Rather we demolish arguments. Belittling others is not our goal. Merely winning arguments is not enough. Instead, we remove obstacles of doubt to Christianity so people can take a serious look at Christ, the only source of hope for this world. True apologetics is hopeful.

A final word. I Peter 3:15 is sandwiched between two very important sentences. Peter starts the verse with a challenge: “Set apart the Messiah as Lord in your hearts.” Apologetics should be done amidst a certain kind of life, one where we surrender more and more of ourselves to Christ. When we do this, He transforms us. So a transformed life is the beginning point for our apologetics.

And what will this kind of apologetic look like? Defense doesn’t mean being defensive. Offense doesn’t mean being offensive. Rather, verse 16 tells us our defense is made “with gentleness and respect.” Doing apologetics with Jesus as Lord and Master of our lives means our encounters will be marked by humility, warmth, grace and love, even while we stand boldly for the truth. By doing so, we follow in the way of Jesus, who was “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

*Used with permission. This article first appeared in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students published by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. For information, click here.

Trusting in That Which is True

Brett Kunkle — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:57:20 -0700

“I like to go hear my dad speak. It makes me feel safe.”   

“What do you mean?” my wife Erin replied to this surprising comment from our nine-year-old son, Micah. Erin had been discussing with a friend the connection between our knowledge of God and our experience of Him, when Micah cut in.   

Micah continued, “At night when I’m afraid, I think about the things Dad says about God and who He is. It makes me feel safe.” With that, Micah simply affirmed what the adults were discussing. Micah has heard a lot of apologetics in his short nine years of life. My kids attend a number of my events each year, and apologetics, theology, and philosophy are woven into our everyday conversations. Micah is growing in his knowledge of the truth.   

But currently, Micah is struggling with fear. He has shared with Erin and me his fears about death. He is scared about his own death and the death of Mom, Dad, and his sisters. He has asked why Jesus doesn’t just come back now and take us all to Heaven. These are normal fears for a nine-year-old contemplating the big questions of life.   

And what is it that is helping Micah overcome those fears? His knowledge. As Micah grows in his knowledge of the arguments for God’s existence, he’s beginning to trust in the reality of God and His presence with us. As Micah grows in his knowledge of God’s character, he’s beginning to trust in the goodness of God. The truth about God is leading him to trust in God. Truth and experience go hand-in-hand.

And the connection between knowledge and experience is affirmed in Scripture:

“For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul” (Proverbs 2:10).
“Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly” (Proverbs 3:16).
“You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:5-6).
“Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28). “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).
“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:9-10).

Whether you’re nine or ninety, you will face fears, trials, and heartbreak. During such times, feelings are unstable, unruly. Our experience of God wanes as His presence seems absent. So what can firmly anchor our trust in God during such times? Our knowledge of Him. The strength of your faith should rest on the object of your faith. When you have good reason to think the object of trust is trustworthy, your faith is strengthened. Truth precedes experience and guides faith through the valleys.

Therefore, we must continue to resist the contemporary Evangelical urge to place experience over and against truth. We must continue to resist Evangelicalism’s anti-intellectual bent and instead, elevate the intellect. We must return to loving God not only with our hearts but also with our minds (Matthew 22:37).

My nine-year old was a stark reminder of this.

Knowledge, Wisdom AND Character

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:49:25 -0700

“An atheist from Berkeley is here.” The youth pastor’s statement caught me off guard. I was sitting in a church lobby, reviewing notes for a talk I was about to give. My first thought was, “What atheist in their right mind would drive from Berkeley to attend a youth apologetics conference in the Inland Empire?”

Seeing my puzzled look the youth pastor offered more. “His name is Tim. He’s right over there.” I glanced in the direction he pointed and recognized Tim immediately. I had met Tim, a recent graduate from U.C. Berkeley, two years ago on one of our mission trips. He had participated in a couple of our joint events with Berkeley’s atheist student club, S.A.N.E. (Students for A Non-religious Ethos), over the last few years. I hadn’t seen Tim for more than a year and now here he was, attending an apologetics conference where I was speaking.

At the break, Tim made his way to my resource table. “Tim!” I exclaimed. Tim smiled and appeared genuinely happy to see me. Indeed, as he approached I grabbed his hand for a firm shake but additionally, he leaned in for a hug. I was glad to embrace him, realizing this hug was no small gesture. Often, when we imagine interactions between atheists and Christians we envision warfare, not friendship. But despite our opposing views about Christianity, Tim is made in God’s image. Tim is an intrinsically valuable human being deserving dignity and respect, not an enemy to be vanquished.

During the lunch break, Tim sat with me. We shared some fries and he quickly launched into a discussion of the cosmological argument for God’s existence, which another conference speaker had advanced. Tim is a smart guy. He’s well read. He knows science and philosophy. So our exchange was well-informed and lively.

Midway through our discussion, Tim surprised me. “I think there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe.” “What?” I replied. Seeing my disbelief, he quickly added, “ I just don’t think the first cause was necessarily God.” I sat forward, eager to engage the issue. “Okay, what are possible candidates for a first cause? What could possibly bring something into existence out of nothing?” We embarked on a lengthy discussion of causation. Tim suggested quantum fluctuations as a candidate, but when I pressed him, he quickly abandoned the notion.

Through our discussion, I realized Tim had trouble giving proper weight to commonsense statements because there were always questions he could raise. However, his questions always danced around on the fringe of an issue, preventing him from acknowledging the force of the commonsense notions he actually affirmed. Gently but directly, I addressed this perceived problem. “Tim, I think you suffer from a paralysis of analysis.” I explained, “The ambiguity you find on the edges of an issue shouldn’t stop you from affirming the truth you discover at the core.” Tim didn’t disagree and didn’t get defensive, but nodded approvingly.

Later, during the drive home, I reflected on my conversation with Tim. It had seemed productive. There was genuine warmth between us. I like Tim and he likes me. We had a calm rational discussion about life’s biggest questions. By affirming a first cause, Tim revealed he has made some movement in the direction of theism over the last two years. Hopefully, I was able to give him further reason to think God is the First Cause. But I was also able to direct his steps a bit, helping him recognize the “paralysis of analysis” he struggles with and encouraging him to move beyond his orientation of uncertainty.

My conversation with Tim was deeply satisfying. I wish I could say all my discussions with non-Christians were but unfortunately, I screw things up plenty. However, with God's help, in this conversation I was able to live by a model we teach at Stand to Reason. We call it the Ambassador Model.

The most effective ambassadors of Christ are those who employ knowledge, wisdom, and character. Tim respects my knowledge and therefore, engages me in discussion. I was able to make my way around the conversation in a wise and thoughtful manner, even speaking directly and frankly when needed. But knowledge and wisdom alone are not enough. They must be undergirded by an attractive manner—character—which provides the necessary platform of trust from which we can speak truth to an atheist like Tim. I wasn't hostile or defensive. I tried to speak humbly, even when disagreeing. Not only did I want him to hear the truth of Christ, I wanted him to experience the love of Christ. If Tim's openness during the conversation is any indication, he may have experienced just a hint of that.

It was a stark reminder that our approach can't be merely academic, rather it must be holistic.

To Grow, Put Yourself in Increasingly Difficult Situations

Brett Kunkle — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:38:25 -0700

Here is some practical advice on how to force some growth in your life. Let's face it, often we have to make ourselves pretty uncomfortable to knock us out of our apathy.