Comments on: Engaging the Culture as Christians

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 03:03:00 +0000

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!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:02:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:27:00 +0000

You're right, John. Truth must always be our goal–not winning.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:48:00 +0000

One more thing, Amy. Please take this as a constructive criticism. I don't think the byline of the A-team blog (

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:36:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:25:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:44:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:58:00 +0000

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.