Engaging the Culture as Christians
August 4, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
I just finished reading The Right Questions by Phillip Johnson (no, not this one–this one). Johnson is devoted to one key enterprise: defeating naturalism. His goal is to separate science (the study of empirical evidence) from naturalist philosophy (the idea that nothing exists beyond the physical) so that scientists will be willing to follow the observable evidence of nature where it truly leads–to a Designer. The results of his efforts are incredible. The ideas have spread, and the movement is gaining credibility in the secular world. I've even begun to see articles in prominent secular publications actually present and address the arguments for intelligent design rather than simply dismiss them with a scornful laugh (see this previous post for a discussion about one of these recent articles).
How has Johnson made such a difference? Nancy Pearcey, in her foreword to The Right Questions, notes some characteristics of Johnson's strategy that have increased his effectiveness in reaching the culture around him. She sums up all these characteristics by saying, “If Christians need to get out of the naturalist's chair in their professional convictions, they also need to get out of it in their day-to-day practices and strategies.” In other words, Johnson's leadership in the intelligent design movement is directed by biblical humility, grace, kindness, respect, and selflessness, reflecting his sincere belief and trust in God.
Here, again, I think we in the blogging world can learn from Johnson's ideas and example, so I'll take a couple of days to reflect on the characteristics described by Pearcey and then apply them, as I'm able, to our situation.
The first thing Pearcey recognizes is that Johnson, rather than spending all of his time speaking to the Christian community, has worked to develop close relationships with top-level atheist evolutionists. I see three points to note about this. First, as GL noted in his comment here yesterday, ideas can't spread if we're only talking amongst ourselves. If the purpose is to change the culture, we have to engage the people who disagree with us. This means we need to get into the trenches and make an effort to develop relationships with other bloggers and with people in our “real lives” who are interested in discussing issues from an opposite point of view. This is a very practical step you can take today.
Second, interacting with those who disagree with us keeps us honest. We're far more careful about accurately and precisely explaining our ideas when we know we'll be challenged on any sloppy or inaccurate thinking–not to mention exaggerated claims. There have been times when I've edited out parts of my posts as I'm writing them because I'm not confident I have sufficient evidence to back up those claims when they inevitably come under fire. I know also that, to my benefit, any wrong thinking I do will be revealed as such by those who disagree, bringing me closer to the truth I constantly seek. This issue of intellectual honesty is a big reason why I'm grateful for those of you who take the time to disagree on this blog. I'm constantly aware you're there, and this keeps me on my toes.
Third, seeking real relationships with those of the ideological opposition keeps us civil. It's hard to be rude or demeaning toward people you know personally. The relationships teach you to separate respect for the person created in God's image from your disagreements. Since you care about those whose ideas you're refuting, you quickly learn to represent the opposition fairly and to respectfully engage them on the issues without losing the strength of your convictions. In the end, you'll be much more likely to fulfill one of my favorite biblical exhortations, 1 Corinthians 16:13-14: “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”
Related posts:
- It's Not About Us
- Postmodern Christians and Million Dollar Baby–When Storytelling is Dangerous (Movie spoilers)
- Responding as Christians
- The "Hitler Charm"
- Book Review: Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
- A Plea for Answers
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page
content rss
August 4th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Great post. I have always enjoyed Phillip Johnson, and I was sad to hear about his stroke. Although he's lost a step, he is a good example of how to be articulate and humble. That he was willing to strike up a continuing friendship with Richard Dawkins is as good an apologetic as Darwin on Trial and The Wedge of Truth.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Amy, I continue to appreciate the tone with which you approach engaging other people. You have done more to improve my opinion of apologetics than any other I have interacted with.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Bill, that is a huge compliment, and it means a lot to me–thanks. I have to give the credit to my professors at Biola, Greg Koukl, and Dennis Prager who modelled this for me.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Gosh, Amy, great post–I couldn't agree with you more. I agree that we have to be willing to listen to those we disagree with us. A spirit that is teachable and humble is essential. I would also add that when we truly listen, we may (or may not) change our point of view. In short, when we listen to others, we may also learn from them. If we don't have this spirit about us, the person on the other side will quickly sniff it out and discount us.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
One more thing, Amy. Please take this as a constructive criticism. I don't think the byline of the A-team blog (
August 4th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
You're right, John. Truth must always be our goal–not winning.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Ah, the tagline. We at the A-Team have had numerous discussions about it. We've kept it up there because 1) it goes with the A-Team theme and 2) even though we aren't completely satisfied with it, we haven't yet come up with anything better.
But I don't think it's against this post, and I'll explain why. It's right out of 2 Corinthians 10:5 (Paul's definition of spiritual warfare) and I believe it's what we're called to do–to defeat ideas that are opposed to God via persuasion of others so that truth and goodness can flourish.
You'll notice that the verse says nothing about destroying people. The last paragraph of my post is the key to understanding this. It's possible to value people and treat them with respect while vigorously opposing their ideas. Take Phillip Johnson, for example. His whole purpose is to destroy the false ideas of people like Dawkins with the truth, and Dawkins is very aware of this. And yet, Johnson's attempts to “destroy” Dawkins's arguments have encouraged both discussion and friendship.
I think that, currently, people generally don't believe that a distinction can be made between the value of a person and the value of his ideas. In a secular, relativistic culture, you can't make a distinction because there's no God giving people intrinsic value, and so you are your ideas. In that case, anyone who argues against your ideas is personally demeaning you and not just your ideas. Ultimately, this is bad for society because truth gets lost in the chaos when debate is considered wrong. Ironically, this all leads to less of an exchange of ideas rather than more!
I hope our blog can show people that it's possible to stand for truth and oppose certain ideas while having very fruitful, interesting, respectful discussions.
August 21st, 2005 at 10:03 pm
John, thanks for bringing this discussion about the tagline up for us again. We've finally found something to change it to (as you can see above). We definitely don't want people to misunderstand who we are and what we do here. Thanks!