Sie sind auf Seite 1von 165

SPIRIT EMPOWERED SPEECH:

TOWARD A PENTECOSTAL APOLOGETICAL METHOD
















A THESIS SUBMITTED TO PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF DIVINITY




BY

KEVIN SNIDER




CLEVELAND, TN

15 DECEMBER 2012


iii


Spirit Empowered Speech:
Toward A Pentecostal Apologetical Method




Accepted by the Examining Committee:

________________________________________________
Steven J. Land, President

________________________________________________
Date

________________________________________________
Sang Ehil Han, Vice President for Academics

________________________________________________
Date

________________________________________________
Oliver McMahan, Vice President for Ministry Formation

________________________________________________
Date

________________________________________________
(Sang Ehil Han), Academic Advisor/Reader


________________________________________________
Date












iv









COPYING AGREEMENT



The physical format of this project is approved and accepted for copy and deposit in the
seminary library:



__________________________________________
Office of the Librarian

__________________________________________
Date



Permission for copy granted if accepted for deposit. Any other revision or use would
have to be approved by the writer.



___________________________________________
Kevin B. Snider













v
ABSTRACT

The current cultural climate has brought with it both challenges and opportunities
for Christians. In this thesis I argue that the postmodern milieu and the New Atheists
present unique apologetic challenges that must be addressed and that the current methods,
while good, are missing a vital element. This element, testimony, is supplied by a
Pentecostal apologetical method. It is my contention that Pentecostals, while relying on
the methods and manners of those who have come before in the area of apologetics, bring
to the task an important contribution and thus need to recognize the importance of their
participation in apologetics.
vi













To my wife, Tara, who by her authentic Pentecostal spirituality
challenges me to be a better theologian-apologist.
vii
PREFACE

The process which has culminated in this thesis has left me with a list of people of
whom I owe the deepest gratitude. To mention them all would require greater space than
I have. However, I would mention some who have been most influential. Dr. Rob
Debelak, who in my undergraduate training first admonished me to pursue the master of
divinity rather than a purely academic program, is due a deep debt of gratitude. Upon
arriving at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary I was assigned to Dr. Ken Archer as an
advisee. This relationship has proven to be one of the most fruitful I have had in
seminary. Kens friendship, guidance, and challenge were precisely what I needed and he
has shaped the person and theologian I am now in ways that I can only begin to process
and be grateful. One final professor has been more formative to me than any other
mentioned here, that is my father-in-law Dr. Terry Cross. Through continual
conversation, he has shaped me as a thinker and Christian in more ways than I can
recount. This thesis is, in large part, due to an assignment he gave me as his teaching
assistant in Systematic Theology during my internship. I am indebted to him beyond what
a simple word of thanks can suffice, nevertheless, thank you. I would be remiss if I did
not mention that it was my mother-in-law and her conversations with me that have helped
me to formulate more clearly what I think a Pentecostal apologetic should look like. Her
conversations deserve more than a mere mention of gratitudethey have indeed been
Gods means of grace for me and for that I am indebted. The greatest order of appreciate
goes to my wife, who has been a conversation partner, accountability partner, and
thorough supporter through this entire process. She above all is the one I am grateful for;
without her, this thesis would only be a thought experiment.
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

DEDICATION PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii


Chapter

1. The Scandal of the Pentecostal Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Introduction
Earliest History
Foundations for Rationalism
Reformed Pentecostal
Internship

2. Apologetical Method: What has La Mirada to do with Azusa? . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Introduction
Lay of the Land: Why the Need for Another Apologetical Method
Current Methods in Apologetics
Conclusion

3. Spirit Empowered Speech: Toward a Pentecostal Apologetical Method . . . . . .75
Introduction
Dialogical/Ambassadorial Apologetics
Pentecostal Worldview/Way of Being
Pentecostal Apologetics: Testimony

4. The Future of Pentecostal Apologetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
Introduction
Current Pentecostal Apologetics
Pentecostal Theology of Culture and Apologetics
Conclusion

APPENDICES

A List of Apologetic Resources Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

B Introduction to Apologetics Course Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

C Annotated Bibliography of Apologetic Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150








Chapter One:

The Scandal of the Pentecostal Mind



Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.
Matt. 22.37-8
2
Introduction

The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical
mind, said Mark Noll in the opening line of his book The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind.
1
Harry Blamires, writing years earlier is less sympathetic when he says, There is
no longer a Christian mind.
2
What I heard when I read Noll during my undergraduate
studies was, The scandal of the Pentecostal mind is that there is not much of a
Pentecostal mind. And in Blamiress lament I heard, There is no Pentecostal mind.
Perhaps in Nolls and Blamiress time of writing there was not much of an evangelical
mind, however, by the time his book was being ingested by me there had been a large
response by evangelicals to promote the life of the mind. What I had not encountered was
a Pentecostal engagement of the life of the mind. The journey from Nolls book and my
reinterpretation of his first line to the thinking Pentecostal that I am now is the subject of
this first chapter. Here I set the stage for the groundwork necessary for what comes in the
following chapters.
Earliest History:

How did the church community set the stage for my intellectual path?
Neither of my parents were church-going people as I was growing up. My father
comes from a Jehovahs Witness backgroundhaving been disfellowshipped in his late
teens, he has been embittered by the churchand my mother comes from the nominal
cultural Christianity that is so prevalent in the Southern United States. When, in early
elementary school, my school bus driver came by our house to ask if she might be able to

1
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1994), 3.

2
Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? (Vancouver: Regent
College Publishing, 1963), 3.
S
pick us kids up for church on Sunday mornings, both of my parents were happy to oblige.
Although they were not interested in church attendance themselves, they were grateful
for a morning free from kids and saw some benefits in a Christian upbringing. This bus
ministry was the conduit for my continued connection to the church and eventually the
gospel message. Through childrens church, I came to know Jesus as Savior. At the time
this Church of God pastured by a Lee University graduate from Trinidad. It was a small
congregation but growing. The bus ministry soon expanded to Wednesday night services
where I became involved in the boys program Royal Rangers. The structure of Royal
Rangers and the intentional involvement of the men who led it were particularly
formative for me during those years from elementary school to high school. I continued
in the program much longer than most boys, eventually moving into the youth group
during my sophomore year in high school.

Pentecostal emotionalism
Home Church

As an Assemblies of God program, the Royal Rangers is Pentecostal and in its
earlier history focused on campcraft and Bible study. Every year we would have regional
camping trips called Pow Wow where churches from the region would compete at a
themed campcraft week and spend time in worship services in the evenings. This became
my first exposure to the revivalistic spirituality of Pentecostalism.
3
During a specialized
training weekend in leadership and survival skill, we had a worship time focused
intentionally on the baptism of the Holy Spirit where I would first experience in a

3
Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 2007),
65-8.
4
personal way the power of the Holy Spirit. These emotional and ecstatic services poured
a foundation for a spirituality that was experience and emotion driven.
This was not lessened as I moved from the boys program into the youth group as a
young teen. Typical of Wednesday night youth service was moving music and an
engaging sermon related to living the Christian life in purity and passion for God. There
was a clear ethical and pietistic tone to our youth services that promoted a life of deep
affection for God and continued struggle to live free from sin. A couple times a year we
would have spiritual retreats. Most of these involved only our church group. On these
trips, we would travel to retreat centers that specialize in hosting large groupsmostly
church groups. During the day we would swim, horseback ride, hike, or do whatever else
the area had available. In the evenings, we would have services of worship, preaching,
and altar. Although it came last, the altar often functioned as the centerpiece . The whole
of the service was building up to the final part that would also be the longest lasting.
Without that distinctive element it would be hard to distinguish our youth group from any
other that might go on spiritual retreats. However, it was the altar service that proved
most formational and this was intentional. There we would be encouraged to have a real
encounter with God, pray, seek the baptism in the Holy Spiritif we had not already
received itor perhaps be slain in the Spirit, which was not an uncommon experience.
These services could last for hours into the early morning. As a teen I remember them
being very energizing; we would leave the retreat feeling refreshed and empowered to
face daily life with a renewed sense of purity and passion for God.
Coupled with the local retreats we went once a year to the large gathering of
Church of God youthWinterfest. This event was a three-day weekend of evening
S
services directed particularly at youth groups. The denomination invested a great deal of
time, energy and money into these events. Prominent worship leaders and speakers were
brought in to minister. The structure was much like our own private retreats: the daytime
was spent around the surrounding area enjoying the sights and attractions; in the evening
were the services. The nightly services were on a grand scale, what we tried to
accomplish on the much smaller scale of our private retreats. Two nightsFriday and
Saturdaywere devoted to lively and engaging worship followed by preaching and
finally the altar service. In the early years, the sheer number of youth gathered, when the
venue was smaller and the services were split were only a couple thousand gathered at a
time, but in the later years when the venue moved to the local basketball stadium often
there were closer to twenty thousand in attendance. This many gathered together carried
with it an energy of its own and, coupled with the emotion of worship and altar services,
it can be hard to describe the intensity and power felt. I went with my youth group to this
gathering four years consecutively and without doubt, they were some of the most
formative experiences for me. It was here that I encountered others my age responding to
the move of the Spirit in various ways that set the stage for my later discomfort with
Pentecostal expression. In an environment where emotional and spiritual expression was
not limited since to do so was to stifle the Spirit (and perhaps even to blaspheme against
the Spirit
4
), nearly any manifestation was possible and acceptable. Abuses and authentic
expression were seen often right next to each other and neither were unpacked or
processed in any reflective manner by the chaperones or pastoral staff. Indeed, as we


4
A clear understanding of what it meant to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was fleeting but it could
be associated with any criticism of what purported to be a move of the Spirit.
6
went home from these events we were encouraged to seek these same experiences on
Wednesday nights.
I found that upon our return on Sunday we would be engaged and lively for the
next few weeks both on Sundays and Wednesdays. Like many other Pentecostal
churches, Sunday mornings were more subdued, although still clearly charismatic and
Pentecostal, but the Sunday evening service was reserved for a more revivalistic feel
where the full expression of charismata and Pentecost was welcomed. Our full
participation in these services was most strong after Winterfest or a weekend retreatthe
same would be true of Wednesday night youth group. Soon, however, we would return to
normal and need re-energizing. The climate of the youth group, and perhaps less so the
church as a whole, was one that promoted emotional, ecstatic and episodic spiritual
experiences. During at least two of these charged worship services I experienced a call
into vocational ministry, which at the time meant for me youth pastoring. Without a
doubt, I could only process this calling in light of the most influential minister in my life
at the timemy youth pastor.
Masters Commission

Immediately after graduating from high school, I joined the discipleship program
called Masters Commission as preparation for youth ministry. My first encounter with
this discipleship group was at Winterfest. Part of one of the sermons was an interactive
drama/pantomime that helped to unfold the message; the students from Masters
Commission were doing the acting. The program was designed to offer nine months of
intensive discipleship and ministry preparation. At the time our youth Sunday School was
doing a discipleship curriculum that had engaged me in ways that our other programs and
7
activities had not. I had been the chaplain for the Royal Ranger program, and still was at
the time. I had become very interested in studying the Bible. The discipleship class we
had started on Sunday mornings had homework requirements with levels to move up
to, which included scripture memory, prayer, and evangelization. Although I was
involved with the church drama team, I had little interest in that aspect of Masters
Commission and was drawn to the discipleship and ministry trainingthis was in my
mind obviously what God was calling me to do.
Although I was unaware at the time Masters Commission was intended to be
holistic discipleship. There were the scripture memory, prayer, spiritual retreats and
worship times but also college courses in Bible and ministry. Thus the attempt was to
engage our minds and our spirits. This would be the first time that I was intellectually
challenged regarding the Bible. Even more, the first year experience of the program was
designed to stimulate spiritual growth through identity development and maturation. The
process was such a positive experience for me that I wanted to return for a second year to
be apart of that process for incoming first year students after which I would go to Lee
University, study youth ministry and then become a youth pastor. However, the second
and third year of the program were for me the most formative and challenging. All that
came before had set the stage for what would happen intellectually and spiritually during
my last two years in Masters Commission.
5


5
Before developing that journey, it is appropriate to offer a proviso on the above history and the
subsequent evaluation to follow. Pentecostalism and the Church of God are not monolithic, that is to say,
that my experience is not indicative of all who have grown up in these two atmospheres. The values of
holiness perfection were strong in my early faith community in ways that date the community to a much
earlier time in Pentecostal history. Yet, the youth groupbecause of a youth pastor raised in the
Assemblies of Godwas not as heavily focused on Christian perfection but rather on emotional
experiences (although this does not seem to stem from his association with the Assemblies of God). This
interesting mix bred in me both a strong passion for holinessperfectionismand spirituality
emotionalism. The church was a wonderful community of faith who loved Jesus Christ and his church,
8
There was a bit of a shift in Masters Commission during my second year in the
program. Previously we had been attached to a local church where we worked closely
with the pastoral staff and ministered. During this second year we traveled more.
Whereas before on Wednesday nights we would be at our local church we now went to
other youth groups and ministered. Since I had expressed a calling to youth ministry it
meant that I was chosen to speak on the nights we were at a youth group. After the
service we would often stay, fellowship, and eat pizzathe youth group staple. This
exposed me to many different youth groups and high school students. Through many
conversations with these students I came to realize that they were biblically illiterate; in
fact, this was true of those I had grown up with in youth group also. I noticed that, as a
church, we were focused intently on experiencing God and hearing from his Spirit but not
focused on learning his Word. This began fueling a passion to study the scriptures in
order to teach them to other Christians. At the same time, I continued course work at Lee
University but soon found myself lacking any real engagement and intellectual challenge
. Two sources would be the stimulus in challenging intellectual growth and set me on the
path that would provide the greatest change. One of the pastoral staff in Masters
Commission was reading a book by Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods
6
, and he
recommended it to me. Through his book, Ravi showed me that the Christian faith is
worth thinking about and, indeed, can be thought about. However, his book would only
set the stage for what would be the most transformative read that year. Expressing my

sought to train people in authentic Christian life, and reach people for the kingdom of God. The journey I
make from the foundation they laid is not to be understood as an implicit critique or failing of that
community. To be sure, my path was influenced and in some ways directed by this my early faith
community, however, what I intend to show is that my own personality and predilections had equal if not
reigning influence. As such, I analyze this foundational community as one inside it and an intimate part of
it.
6
Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message
(Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2000).
9
anguish over the illiteracy of the youth I encountered and my own lack of knowledge to
meet the challenge, a fellow student in Masters Commission recommended and gave to
me J.P. Morelands book Love Your God with All Your Mind.
7

Foundations for Rationalism

J.P. Moreland

Since this was one of the more formative books for me, a brief dialogue with
Moreland is appropriate. Moreland helped me to put words and concepts to what I was
coming to experience in the various youth groups to which I was speaking. In the first
chapter, he puts his finger on the heartbeat of the problem, as he sees it: a growing anti-
intellectualism in the church resulting in the marginalization of Christianity in society.
8

This was my first encounter with the idea that the church had an anti-intellectual element.
To be sure, my church never espoused an anti-intellectual message from the pulpit or
youth room.
9
Indeed, both the senior pastor and youth pastor were college graduates and
both had to work hard at great personal cost to obtain that education (furthermore, the
senior pastor went on to earn a masters degree and his wife a doctorate, albeit neither in
religious studies). The church was very supportive of college education since most of the
members were college educated themselves. However, somehow there was a disconnect
between educational pursuit for vocational gain and the same sort of intellectual pursuit


7
J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul
(Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997).

8
Ibid., 21.

9
The precritical beliefs are made known through the practiced liturgies, as Smith puts it, Implicit
in these [Pentecostal] practices are not only beleifs, but also an unarticulated, affective understanding that,
when articulated, we will describe as a pentecostal worldview (James K.A. Smith, Thinking In Tongues
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub Co., 2010], 27). These beliefs do not have to be taught explicitly from the
point of authority to take root in the congregation. Rather, the liturgy of the service is formative on its own
and by that virtue teaches also.
1u
for spiritual gain. Unlike other Christian traditions that require graduate training for their
pastors, my tradition merely requires calling and the Spirit. Thus, on the one hand,
there was no explicit teaching that education was wrong or that intellectual endeavors
were superfluous, yet on the other hand, there was no need and, in reality, no
encouragement to seek education. A part of being Pentecostal means believing that the
Spirit can and does speak to anyone, even (perhaps especially) the uneducated. Moreland
goes on to show that one of the influencing factors in the growth of anti-intellectualism in
Christianity was the influence of American revivalism. Quoting George Marsden, he
says, anti-intellectualism was a feature of American revivalism.
10
Unpacking the
repercussions of revivalism, Moreland points out,
Their overall effect was to overemphasize immediate personal conversion
to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction;
emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful
doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to
Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and
ideas
11


Upon reading this, it became obvious that he could just as easily have been referring to
the Pentecostal Christianity that I had come to know. Our emphasis was certainly on
personal conversion and feelings. Furthermore, the Bible increasingly was sought solely
as a practical guide for ethical guidance and spiritual growth but not as a body of
divinely revealed, true propositions about various topics that requires devoted intellect to
grasp and study systematically.
12
Again, Moreland could have been describing myself
and all the Pentecostals that I had been discipled by and was now teaching. At least until I


10
Ibid. 23.

11
Ibid.

12
Ibid., 24.
11
began taking college Bible courses, Bible study was the process of finding personal
meaning and words from the Lord. There was no need for hermeneutical training when
the Spirit was available to all to give the text meaning. The intersection of Morelands
depiction of the problem facing Christianity with my own encounter with youth
confirmed in me that Pentecostals had been and are anti-intellectual. I, however, was
thoroughly engaged by and enjoyed study. Therefore, Morelands antidote to the illness
facing Christianity was a breath of fresh air: development of the Christian mind, which is
perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification.
13
At this point, my
journey was set. If I was to make an impact on the lack of Christian mind in the church,
particularly the youth, I would need to pursue the life of the mind as J.P. Moreland
describes it. Although Moreland set me on the path toward rationalism, it was not he
alone who had the sole influence.
Calvinism

After Masters Commission, I joined the Army National Guard and connected
with a unit in Maryland. The strong community aspect of Masters Commission instilled
a desire to connect beyond surface level with a faith community. I start attending an
ecumenical Bible study held in the home of a married couple that were close friends. The
group was mostly Baptist. The husband of the couple was a Seventh Day Baptist,
however there was a Presbyterian and myself, the only Pentecostal (and Arminian). Over
the course of a year we developed strong friendships and engaged in deep conversation
about theological issues. In particular, the Presbyterian and I engage in many discussions
over Calvinism versus Arminianism. During those discussions, I found that I was


13
Ibid., 22.
12
woefully inadequate at rebuffing his critiques of my view and he is able to deftly answer
my invectives. This set me on the pursuit to understand theology more closely and I
began to read two systematic texts written from a Calvinist perspective.
14
Both of these
books engaged my intellect in ways that I had not found before. The theological pursuit
began to meet the need for developing the life of the mind that Moreland had so pointedly
convinced me needed attention. In Calvinism, I found that there was little room for anti-
intellectualism but a warm welcome to be rational. After a year and a half, there was still
the passion and calling to vocational ministry but now the vision had been refined a bit. I
would move back to Lee University and pursue a degree in Bible and theology with the
intention of teaching Bible and theology as a pastor of some kind. Calvinism had opened
the door to pursue theological and intellectual excellence so that my theology would be
Calvinistic even though I would be trained at an Arminian school.
There is a spiritual element to my conversion to Calvinism that cannot be
dismissed. An aspect of Arminian theology is the prospect that salvation can be lost. This
ideacoupled with the holiness movements consistent focus on sanctification as what
one doesis a formula for the loss of assurance. As a young Christian I would pray
every night to be savedalthough I had been to the altar as an eight year old and said the
sinners prayerin the event that I had done something during that day that would
remove me from the rolls of heaven. The only assurance I had was what I felt; my
emotions became the barometer of my spirituality. This, however, was not the explicit
message from the pulpit on Sunday mornings; it was the formative message from the altar
where a great deal of Pentecostals get their theologythe prayer time after the sermon


14
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); and Millard J.
Erickson, Christian Theology 2
nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003).
1S
where God is supposed to be encountered. Calvinism, by contrast, offered assurance
based solely on the work of Christ; I would no longer have to rely on my feelings as the
arbiter of spiritualitypiety would not longer be determined by how elated or close to
God I felt. Thus my conversion to Calvinism was not purely rational.
Undergraduate

Although I had planned to work toward a bachelors of arts in Bible and theology,
I found that when I got to Lee it would be faster, and substantially cheaper, for me to
major in Christian ministry with an emphasis in theology. The course work I had
completed in Masters Commission was part of the pastoral ministry degree and thus a
Christian ministry program allowed more to transfer. Eventually in preparation for
graduate work I changed the emphasis to Bible since I would be doing theological studies
at the graduate level. It was during my undergraduate work that I became most solidified
in pursuing intellectual studies. As part of our program of study, the university gave us
copies of Clifford Williamss book The Life of the Mind,
15
which sparked my interest to
read other books like Williamss and Morelands. I began to read James Sire,
16
which in
turn led to Mark Noll and James Emery White.
17
Each of these authors lifted up the
importance of the mind as a Christian calling or discipline and each offered approaches
on how best to train the mind. A common thread to all was the importance of building a
library and reading, but also knowing what one believed and how to defend those beliefs.


15
Clifford Williams, The Life of the Mind: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002).

16
James W. Sire, Discipleship of the Mind: Learning to Love God in the Ways We Think
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990); and Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

17
James Emery White, A Mind for God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
14
The influence of Masters Commission and my experience in youth group left me
with a sense of the importance to stay connected to the local body of faith. My only
connection in Maryland had been the Bible study; I attended a Pentecostal church but had
little connection to the ministry. Therefore, when I came back to Lee University I sought
out an internship at a local church. I connected with a large church in the area as a youth
staff intern, which would be my home for the next two and a half years. This experience
proved to be one of the most formative in pushing me in the direction of rationalism. A
clearer picture of anti-intellectualism would be difficult to find than that which was given
in this youth group. Consistently education was derided as unnecessary and potentially a
waste; what was truly valuable was experience and the Spirit. Although I had volunteered
apart from the degree program to intern, I was constantly reminded that college training
for ministry was superfluous and often wrong. All the while, the youth pastor would often
misunderstand theological concepts or make remarks that reflected ignorance of basic
biblical concepts. Rather than detract from my intellectual pursuit it pushed me harder to
study and learnin order not to be like this pastor. I dove into the readings by authors
who promoted the life of the mind. Through their writings I encountered the sub-
discipline of apologetics. Most of those who were promoting Christian intellectualism
were also apologists. This interest in apologetics fueled the growing rationalism in me,
since Christianity is rationalit is eminently rational.
18

Apologetics was not available to study as part of the degree program I was
pursuing at Lee (there is only one course listed in the catalogue for this subject, which
had not been offered in a couple years at the time), thus I had to search out where to get

18
R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of
the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), ix.
1S
training. Denver Seminary through their online and distance learning programs had made
available the lectures of philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothuis. His lectures on
philosophy and apologetics were soon staple listening for me. Ronald Nash, another
Christian philosopher and apologist whose seminary and undergraduate lectures were
available online, also became foundational for my apologetics training. Along with an
understanding of apologetics comes the need to engage in philosophical study, which I
was able to accomplish through ITunes University and the lectures available there from
multiple universities. This entire process sharpened my intellectual skill while at the same
time solidifying me in the rationalist vein. Upon graduating from Lee my intention was to
pursue a masters degree in apologetics and philosophy from a school that specializes in
both; from there I would go to post-graduate education in philosophy and apologetics and
eventually teach both at the undergraduate level. The closest seminary that offered a
program I was interested was not accredited, which would not work for me being
accepted into a doctoral program. Thus, I looked closer to home with the intention of
going a semester and then deciding where to pursue apologetics.
Reformed Pentecostal

Seminary

Following the bad news that the school nearby that offered a program in
apologetics and philosophy was not accredited, I applied to the Pentecostal Theological
Seminary. This was somewhat begrudgingly and resistantly done. I had no aspirations to
attend a Pentecostal institution, especially one so avowedly Pentecostal as to change their
name and title all their courses declaratively. I was a Calvinist looking to study
philosophytwo items for which Pentecostals are not known as specialists. Furthermore,
16
I was not interested in ministry as a vocation at this point, only in being a professor and
thus had little use for a Master of Divinity. I had, however, been given some advice in my
undergraduate studies by my advisor that still weighed on me: Christian schools who hire
professors want to know that those they hire will look at teaching as a ministry not just a
paycheck. The Master of Divinity as preparation for this will be much better than a
Master of Arts in theological studies I was advised. After the first semester, I had not
found a school to study apologetics and instead I had bought a house, built close
friendships with fellow classmates, and started dating the woman whom I would later
marry. It is clear, now, that God had planned a journey of which I was unaware and
against which I was fighting. The process of moving from a rationalistic to a holistic view
of what it means to be human was instigated by my experience and study at The
Pentecostal Theological Seminary.
During the second year of the MDiv program I took a required course on the
foundations of discipleship in which one of the tasks of the course was to write a research
paper in support of my own philosophy of discipleship. I had found John Wesleys
Methodism structure helpful and applied a rationalistic model to it that made it similar
to three college classrooms with differing sizes. Each would be centered on a classroom
teaching model that would encourage the development of the life of the mind. I
envisioned each of the three groups (Class, Band, and Society) as places where the
worldview of Christians could be formed.
19
In the process of writing this paper I came

19
Sires definition of worldview best summarized my own conception of the culmination of ones
life orientation. He defines it as, A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart,
that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true
or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the
basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our
being (James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 4th ed. [Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2009], 20).
17
across what would amount to a major critique of my approach, James K.A. Smiths
Desiring the Kingdom and Thinking in Tongues.
20

Thinking In Tongues

I had encountered Jamie Smiths work earlier in a proposed course studying the
intersection of Pentecostalism and postmodernity and a course on the intersection of
theology and philosophy.
21
Since then, Smith has proven to be a vital influence in
bringing a holistic and integrated view of the human to my theology, and specifically my
anthropology. In many ways, he stands in contrast to the earlier reading that I had been
doing. Previously, all of the philosophers and apologists that I had read took a very
negative view of postmodernism. His critique of the regnant dismissal of any value to be
found in postmodernism set the stage for his critique of rationalism. This aspect of how
postmodernism responds to the rationalism of modernity will be explored more in the
next chapter, but it is important to highlight how Smiths move opened up for me the
possibility of moving from a rationalist to holist.
On his blog, Jamie Smith had promoted his upcoming book Desiring the Kingdom
and even made some of the material available to read early. He did this also with his
Pentecostal contribution to philosophy, Thinking in Tongues. Never before had I
encountered a Pentecostal doing philosophy and so I was very intrigued with Jamies
work (which I pre-ordered and read within two days of its arrival). This began the


20
James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009); and Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian
Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010).

21
James K.A. Smith, Whos Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to
Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); and Kelly James Clark, Richard Lints, and James K.A.
Smith, 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2004).
18
journey away from rationalism. How Smith unpacks his message in both books shows
how to move away from rationalism. Before the details of these two books is explored it
is important to note that Smith has planned to write a three-part series exploring cultural
liturgies, of which Desiring the Kingdom is volume one. Thinking in Tongues is part of
another series, Pentecostal Manifestos. However, Smith has said that it fits well as
volume 1.5 in his cultural liturgy. The close connection that the two share is
anthropologicalthe view of the human found in both volumes informs the implications
explored in both; first education in Desiring the Kingdom, and second Pentecostalism in
Thinking in Tongues.
In contrast to my understanding of worldview (which was characterized by
rational propositions that are both known and unknown and the Christian worldview as
characterized by beliefs, ideas, and doctrines), Smith responds to this by wondering if this
view has started from the wrong placewhat if it is more about formation than
information? The challenge that Smith sounds in his Desiring the Kingdom is against the
view that humans are only thinking thingsthe kind of being that is strongly promoted
in rationalistic thinking. He offers instead a view of humanity in which humans are first
and foremost driven by passions; that is, our thinking and cognition arise from a more
fundamental, precognitive orientation to the world,
22
which Smith unpacks as love. The
precritical orientation that people have is driven by what they desire or love. The task of
Christian education and discipleship is the formation and transformation of these
passions. He is careful to point out that this is not an exhortation to anti-intellectualism,
but a revision of anthropology which is more holisticit takes into consideration the
affective element of what it means to be human. Desiring the Kingdom has a clear

22
Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 28
19
direction toward education and the implications and practices that arise from his initial
point and thus had bearing on my paper for a creative discipleship model.
Although I read Thinking in Tongues too far into my seminary experience to
move to another institution, I was still no less interested in philosophy and indeed wanted
my emphasis not only to be theology but more specifically philosophical theology.
Therefore, when Smiths book reached my door I read it immediately. In this small
exploration, the ideas of Smiths work had great implications for who I wasit came to
impact my identity. I had approached the Pentecostal Theological Seminary begrudgingly
because I felt neither Pentecostalat least not in the classical sensenor a minister. I
wanted to do academic studies. I encountered Thinking in Tongues in the summer prior to
the second year and by this time I had resigned to finish the degree program. Smiths
work was a breath of fresh air in the face of frustration with Pentecostal theology. My
experience growing up in the Pentecostal movement had instilled in me the belief that to
be Pentecostal was to be enamored with emotionalism and anti-intellectualism. Although
the professors at the seminary were not this kind of Pentecostal, all of my experience with
those outside of the academic Pentecostals circles still confirmed this viewspeaking in
tongues and ecstatic, cathartic experiences define what it means to be Pentecostal. The
abuses I had seen at Winterfest and youth group had confirmed in me that being a
Pentecostal had nothing to do with the life of the mind, which had become so important
to me. As a philosopher, Reformed thinker, and Pentecostal, Jamie Smith opened a new
way for me to think about being Pentecostal. For Smith, Pentecostalism offers not only a
distinct way of worshiping, but also a distinct way of thinking;
23
this is precisely what I
needed to embrace Pentecostalism once again. In enumerating this way of thinking,

23
Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 25; emphasis original.
2u
Smith unpacks a Pentecostal worldview but first must redefine worldview to correct the
overly rationalistic approaches that have come before. A worldview is a passional
orientation that governs how one sees, inhabits, and engages the world, and quoting
Olthius, A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs
through which we view the world and our calling and future in it.
24
Offering further
clarification, Smith notes, So, to speak of a worldview is to speak about our most
fundamental orientation to the world; a framework that operates even prior to thought; a
passional orientation of our imagination that filters and explains our experience of the
world.
25
Already it is clear that this understanding of worldview stands in contrast to
what I had come to embrace through Sire and indeed, this view critiques my incipient
anthropology. Smiths five elements of a Pentecostal worldview present a Pentecostalism
that I could embrace; perhaps because they are more catholic than particular, yet they are
distinctive enough in that a cessationist assumption would prohibit acceptance.
26
The five
elements are (1) radical openness to God, (2) enchanted theology of creation and
culture, (3) nondualistic affirmation of embodiment and materiality, (4) affective,
narrative epistemology, and (5) eschatological orientation to mission and justice.
27
The
two most influential in shifting my thinking were elements three (a new view of
anthropology that was not dualistic but embraced the affective and the material) and four


24
Ibid., 27.

25
Ibid., 29.

26
It should be noted that in all of my struggling with Pentecostal as an identity, I never became a
cessationist. To the contrary, I find the arguments in favor of cessationism very weak and obscurantist.
However, in my own spiritual practice I was theoretically open to the gifts and operation of the Spirit but
functionally closed.

27
Smith, Thinking In Tongues, 32-3.
21
(an epistemology that is not characterized by modernistic rationalism). To be sure the
other elements were impactful, particularly the first, which allowed for a view of God
that is dynamic and personalthe kind of view of God that I had come to know through
the work of Jrgen Moltmann
28
and that allowed for the five-fold gospel. Through this
work, it became clear to me that a holistic view of what it means to be human was most at
home in a Pentecostal view of life.
One other text helped to solidify my theological and spiritual identity by Jamie
Smith, Letters to a Young Calvinist.
29
I had grown defensive and frustrated with the
interaction between some students and faculty with ideas that stand in contrast to
Pentecostalism, specifically Calvinism. As one who thought of myself as a Calvinist, I
found the representation of Calvin (and Calvinists) as unfair, biased, and at times very
inaccurate. It would not be unusual for fellow students to joking say they would pray for
my conversion (with clear implication that they were also serious), or for faculty to make
blanket statements about Calvin that were untrue (there is no assurance in Calvins
theology), or for a class to require a text that misrepresents Calvin and the Reformed
tradition grossly (Wynkoops Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology
30
). Smith had


28
Especially impactful for me was his Trinity and the Kingdom.

29
James K.A. Smith, Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition (Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010).

30
One misrepresentation, among the many citations that could be given, from this work is: in
Calvinism the image [imago Dei] is thought to be totally destroyed, making man wholly and irrevocably
corrupt in this life and incapable of any act or word or thought untainted by that corruption (Mildred
Bangs Wynkoop, Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, [Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967],
98). However, Calvinism has not taught, nor did Calvin, that the image of God is totally destroyed this
is the error; the second half of her quote is more accurate but misrepresents the Calvinists view in that she
makes a false connection. The image is marred and as such incapable of seeking God, but it is not totally
lost leading to what she has concluded. See Calvins own Institutes, 1.15.4 for clarification: There is no
doubt that Adam, when he fell from his state, was by this defection alienated from God. Therefore, even
though we grant that Gods image was not totally annihilated and destroyed in him, yet it was so corrupted
22
opened the door for me to accept that I could be Pentecostal and intellectual at the same
time (I cannot also dismiss the many professors who exhibit this characteristic and their
influence), but I continued to face the proposition that I could not be Pentecostal and
Calvinist at the same time. Jamie Smith published both Thinking in Tongues and Letters
to a Young Calvinist in the same year. In both he holds to the Reformed faith while at the
same time embracing a Pentecostal view of life. This showed me that both can be held at
the same time, if perhaps not the kind of Calvinism that is popular among more staunch
New Calvinists nor the Pentecostalism that is tied too closely to dispensationalism and
Arminianism. However, none of these quantifiers (New Calvinism, dispensationalism,
Arminianism, etc) are the sine qua non of what it means to be either broadly Reformed or
Pentecostal.
The writings of Jamie Smith has been the force that opened the door for me to
embrace Pentecostalism once again, however without losing the distinctive of Reformed
theology that I gained along the journey. With Smith, I confess my identity as a
Reformed Pentecostal. This is not without its tensions and untidiness I realize, but it most
faithfully represents my experience and theology at this point and directly impacts how I
view the task of defending the faith. One more piece of the puzzle is necessary to view
the picture of how my story impacts the subject of apologetics.
Internship


that whatever remains is frightful deformity. The Lutheran doctrine, from Luther himself, holds that the
image is destroyed. However, one must understand how image is being defined in Lutheran theology
most often it is in terms of relationality, such that at the fall the relation between God and humanity was
lost, thus the image was destroyed; although, Michael Horton in his The Christian Faith: A Systematic
Theology for Pilgrims on the Way argues that the Calvinist and Luther doctrines are not so far apart and
closer to Calvin when the terms are properly understood.
2S
A vital part of the MDiv program is the completion of an internship that gives
important connections to the ministry future envisioned. Since I understand my calling as
a theology professor, the natural choice was to do my internship as a teaching assistant in
the theology department of Lee University. One of the assignments that I was given was
to offer a lecture on the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel
Dennett, and Sam Harris), their major objections to Christian faith and how to respond to
them. Because of my interest in apologetics, I had already read some of their work but
this gave me the opportunity to read most of their writing against Christianity and really
study the responses that Christian apologists have offered. In the process of this research,
and in light of the changes in my philosophy/theology through the influence of Jamie
Smith and the seminary, I found that the typical responses of Christian philosophers and
apologists, while surely up to the task and rational, did not address the concerns of a
postmodern, post-Christian milieu. They, like I had been, were (and are) enamored with a
modernistic rationalist response. In working on the response, I found that as a Pentecostal
in a postmodern culture I have some advantages in the apologetic task. To be sure, this is
not narrowly Pentecostal in the sense that only Pentecostals have the advantage, but by
virtue of the way Pentecostals do theology and in virtue of the view of life as Smith
describes it, Pentecostals are especially suited to answer the challenges presented by the
New Atheists and the world at-large. The nature of apologetics and the current culture is
the subject of chapter two and chapter three will unpack how Pentecostals can offer
something new to the task of apologetics.




24







Chapter Two:

What has La Mirada to do with Azusa?
31
























31
This quote is a play on James K.A. Smiths oft-used phrase, What has Athens to do with
Azusa? (itself a turn of Tertullians words What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?) Smith is a
philosopher and a Pentecostal, two adjectives that are rarely seen together and thus he has had to defend, on
both sides of the fencephilosophy and Pentecostalismhis authenticity to both. La Mirada, California is
home to Biola University and Talbot School of Theology, both of which are centers for Christian
apologetics. Top tier philosophers in Christian apologetics are professors there and the program in
apologetics and philosophy is among the best in the nation. With this phrase I am attempting to capture the
current disconnect between apologetics and Pentecostalism.
2S
Introduction

The times, they are a-changin Bob Dylan said in the 1960s. This is no less true
of our current times than it was of his. These changes present many challenges and
opportunities for Christians. We face the overt challenge of the New Atheists and the
covert challenges and opportunities in the culture shift with postmodernism. The
Christian is faced with the question of how to respond. The aim of this chapter is to set
the groundwork for an authentic Pentecostal way of doing apologetics
32
explicated in
the following chapter. This groundwork consists of exploring the current Western cultural
climate
33
and the influence of the New Atheists. After this, we will examination the
current methods of apologetics to see if they are meeting the challenges posed by both the
culture and the New Atheists. Finally, the Pentecostal worldview will be unpacked as
foundational for the methodology that flows out of such a way of being in the world.
Each of these steps will set up the following chapter of actual methodology for a
Pentecostal apologetics.


32
It may be helpful to the reader to have a definition of apologetics. Alister McGrath points out
that there are essentially two sides to apologetics: On the one hand it concerns the countering of objections
to the Christian faith, and on the other it concerns setting out the attractiveness of the gospel (Alister
McGrath, Evangelical Apologetics, Bibliotheca Sacra 155, no. 617 [Jan 1998], 3). For a more in depth
look at the definition of apologetics a couple works are helpful: James K. Beilby, Thinking About Christian
Apologetics: What it is and Why We Do It (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2011), esp. 11-34; Louis
Markos, Apologetics for the 21
st
Century (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), esp 17-24; and Alister McGrath,
Mere Apolgoetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012),
esp. 13-25. In this thesis I do not set out to defend apologetics, that is, it is not my intention to offer
biblical, theological, or philosophical reasons for doing apologetics. Sources are available toward that end:
Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2011), esp. 23-44; Craig Hazen, Defending the Defense of the Faith, in To Everyone an
Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P.
Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 37-46.

33
Although Pentecostalisms largest presence is non-Western or Majority World, this study
focuses on Western culture as the locus specifically because of my own contextualization. This is not to
privilege Western culture over against the Majority World context, rather it sees the Western postmodern
and post-Christian culture as presenting particular and peculiar challenges (that may be present in non-
Western cultures also) that Pentecostals are especially poised to meet.
26

Lay of the Land: Why the Need for Another Apologetic Method?

Cultural Exploration

In the opening chapters of Mark, Jesus offers a parable of the sower and the seed
(Mark 4.2-8). In this parable a farmer goes out into the field to plant seed. The field is
comprised of multifarious soil types; some of it is hard, some of it has thorns, other soils
are good and rich. As the seed takes root, the soil type dictates the success the farmer has
with the crop. A few verses later, Jesus explains that the seed is the word and the
differing soils are those who receive the seed. Gregory Ganssle has made an interesting
apologetic connection to this parable.
34
He reminds us that it is not the sower or the soil
that necessarily makes the seed grow (although in Jesuss parable it is clear that the soil is
a major part of the process), rather, by referencing Paul in First Corinthians, Ganssle
points out that it is God who makes growth happen. The Christian, or in Ganssles model,
apologete, is the one who does the sowing of the seed. His observation is that one task of
apologetics is to diagnose the soils condition. Ganssle remarks that it would have been in
the front of the hearers minds, as part of an agrarian culture, to consider the condition of
the soil and properly respond to it. The connection, then, to apologetics is that as we do
defense of the faith we take into consideration the condition of the soil and respond
appropriately to it. This response takes different forms depending on the soil. Sometimes
the farmer (or apologist) tills the ground more, or perhaps waters more. In any case, the
farmer must respond to the soil by changing the receptivity of the seed. Thus, this next

34
Gregory E. Ganssle, Making the Gospel Connection: An Essay Concerning Applied
Apologetics, in Come Let us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, eds. Paul Copan and William
Lane Craig (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2012), 7-8.
27
section is a brief diagnosis of the soil into which we sow the seed of the word through
apologetics.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is notoriously difficult to define, often being referred to as a
slippery notion.
35
It seems there are miscellaneous connotations depending on exactly
to what this word is being referred. Anything from architecture to physics might be
postmodern, but for our purposes here we will look at it from a philosophical and
cultural/sociological standpoint. As the word itself implies, postmodernism is post-
modernthat is, after modernity.
36
To better understand what follows modernity, a brief
look at modernity is in order.

Modernism

William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland have laid out a brief summative history
that helps define modernism, they write, Modernity is the period of European thought
that developed out of the Renaissance (14
th
-17
th
centuries) and flourished in the
Enlightenment (17
th
-19
th
centuries) in the ideas of people like Descartes, Locke,
Berkeley, Hume, Leibniz and Kant.
37
Following after Descartes, modernity is often
characterized as a time focused on the establishment of knowledge on a universal and

35
This will be a very brief sketch of postmodernism. Some helpful resources on further exploring
postmodernity: Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer On Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1996); James K. A. Smith, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida,
Lyotard, and Foucault to Church(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006); Carl Raschke, The Next
Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004);
and for critical views see: Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges
of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2000); and Theories of Truth and Postmodernism, in
Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview, esp. pages 144-53.

36
James Sire maintains, and in this he is not alone, that postmodernism is not post anything, rather
it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments seriously and
seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic
Worldview Catalog, 4
th
ed., [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004], 212).
37
Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 145.
28
objective foundation.
38
Descartes, who is considered the father of modernity,
39

emphasized two elements: knowledge is equal to certainty (achieved solely on the basis
of reason); and the mathematization of the worldseeing the world as a geometrical
object of investigation rather than a living organism.
40
Descartes breaks the necessary
ground for the flourishing of scientismthe belief that all truth is scientific truth and
that the sciences give us our best shot at knowing how things really are.
41
Following
Descartes comes the Enlightenment with two basic emphases also: autonomous reason
and autonomy of the individual.
42
Therefore, to summarize briefly, modernity: (1)
attempted to establish culture and life on a universal and objective foundation; (2) offered
Reason (with a capital R) to scrutinize critically every claim and to ground the edifice of
knowledge; and (3) proffered the hope that through Reason humans could understand the
cosmos, establish social peace and improve their condition.
43
In the epistemological
framework of philosophy and the sciences, the modernist trajectory establishes
empiricism or evidentialism (also referred to as verificationism
44
) and absolute


38
Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm, Introduction, in Christian Apologetics in the
Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm (Downers Grove IL.: IVP Academic,
1995), 12.

39
Justin Skirry, s.v. Ren Descartes (1596-1650): Overview, in Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, ed. Jason Waller (13 September 2008). http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/

40
Modernity/Modernism, 101 Key Terms in Philosophy, 54-5.

41
C. Stephen Evans quoted in Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision:
Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 167. James Taylor lists
two kinds of scientism: strong scientism where the only source of knowledge is through the empirical
sciences; and weak scientism where the best epistemology is grounded in empiricism. See James E. Taylor,
s.v. The New Atheists, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (29 January 2010).
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/.

42
Modernity/Modernism, 101 Key Terms in Philosophy, 55.
43
Phillips and Okholm, Introduction, Christian Apologetics, 12.

29
objectivity and (supposed) neutrality. This is the scene which postmodernism reacts
against. As Jamie Smith has pointed out, however, the relationship between modernism
and postmodernism is not a clear-cut move from one into the other. Both cultural
philosophies are variegated and there are both continuities and discontinuities between
modernity and postmodernity.
45


Postmodernism

Postmodernism can accurately be construed (if only slightly reductionistically) as
a critical epistemological response to the foundationalism of modernitya
reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge.
46
It is important to
note that postmodernism is understood in various ways by its proponents and this short
introduction cannot do justice to the finer points of agreement and disagreement between
postmodern thinkers and their critics. What I will give here is postmodernisms chief
complaints against modernism and how this sets up the apologetic enterprise for those
living in a postmodern culture.
Initially, I pointed out that postmodernism (in one facet) is a response to
foundationalism; it may serve well to have a better understanding of foundationalism.
Essentially, it is a theory of epistemic justification that represents a quest for epistemic
certainty and it is this desire to have certainty that provides the intellectual impetus for
foundationalism.
47
Postmodernism rejects this theory as the only and appropriate

44
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2008), 18.

45
James K.A. Smith, Whos Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to
Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 26.

46
Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 145.
47
Ibid, 146.
Su
epistemic justification. Closely connected to this is the rejection of rationality as
objective. Postmodern thinkers maintain that there is no Gods eye view or purely
objective view. Reason, argumentation and truth are culturally and socially conditioned.
There is no neutral standpoint from which to approach the world, and thus observations,
beliefs and so forth are perspectival constructions that reflect the viewpoint implicit in
ones own web of beliefs.
48
Because neutrality is rejected so is access to objective
truth and this is generally interpreted by critics as a rejection of the correspondence
theory of truth as well as, an embrace of relativism. Not all postmodern thinkers accept
this characterization. Philip Kenneson in his article, Theres no Such Thing as Objective
Truth, and its a Good Thing Too, argues that his position, while rejecting objective
truth as something out there we have access to, denies relativism.
49
For Kenneson and
other postmodern thinkers, truth is grounded in language, which is conditioned by
hermeneutics and semiotics. Similarly, any narrative that assumes at its base to rest on
the purely neutral truth is questioned. This leads to their rejection of meta-narratives. This
is often seen differently among postmodern thinkers. Some only reject those that appear
to be foundationalistic, while others reject any narratives that seek to encompass all other
narratives. To summarize briefly and perhaps a bit too simplistically, postmodernism
questions all claims to neutrality and objectivity. Any theory or claim that rests on some
claim to neutral/objective reality is suspect in postmodern thinking. This does have
benefits for Christian apologetics. It opens the way for a less rationalistic view of


48
Ibid.

49
Philip D. Kenneson, Theres No Such Thing as Objective Truth, and its a Good Thing Too,
in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1995), 155-70.
S1
epistemology. Knowledge is not centered chiefly in objectivity, but is conditioned by
personal experience. In this way, the postmodern view is more open to the life story of
others. This provides great opportunities for Pentecostals doing apologetics.
With its move from modernism to postmodernism, the cultural milieu has
drastically changed in the last century . This has brought challenges, both positive and
negative, to the churchs attempt at evangelization and apologetics. With the rejection of
meta-narratives, the table of fellowship has opened chairs for voices otherwise oppressed
and marginalized. This is surely a positive thing for Christians, particularly Pentecostals
who have been in times past, kept from the table. This new act of openness is double-
edged, however. While welcoming all narratives to the discussion, the pluralism fathered
by postmodernity rejects any narrative that makes objective claims. This puts the
Christian in a peculiar position, she now has a right to speak, but her impression is that
Jesus does indeed make claim for all humanity. How is she to proceed in offering hope to
a dying world that rejects claims over all humanity as oppressive, power language games
inherent in meta-narratives? Coupled with this concern about sharing her hope she is
faced with the challenges the New Atheists propose. How might she defend her faith in a
postmodern world against what appears to be modernist challenges? This hybrid
challenge has been the topic of interest to those who are interested in apologetic method.
A further challenge that the move from modernism has given the Christian apologist is
the fact and value divide.

Fact/Value Divide

S2
Fiancis Schaeffei in his little book, !"#$%& ()*+ ,&$"*-,
Su
tiaces the
histoiical uevelopment of what he calls the uppei anu lowei stoiy of knowleuge. Foi
Schaeffei, how humanity came to the cuiient state wheie theie is a uiviue between
iationality anu faith (ultimately non-iationality) is a long histoiy with its beginnings
in Thomas Aquinas. The pictuie that he is painting has to uo with the mental
uivision cieateu between those things which aie iational, such as facts oi science,
anu those which aie non-iational, such as moials, faith, ait, etc. Although Schaeffei
was uiscussing these issues in 1968, they have not subsiueu. Rathei, it seems that
Schaeffei hau his fingei on the pulse of the cultuie anu its uiiection. This uiviue
piesents unique challenges to uoing apologetics anu thus is woith some exploiation.
In humanity's eailiest philosophical histoiy, theie has been a uiviue
between mateiial anu immateiial. The immateiial was moie valuable anu focuseu
on than the mateiial. Bowevei, this begins to change, accoiuing to Schaeffei, when
Thomas Aquinas makes the uiviue between natuie anu giace. Natuie is the lowei
level wheie cieation iesiues anu giace is the uppei level wheie uou anu the
heavenly things, incluuing the human soul, iesiue. This cieates a pioblem foi
Schaeffeianu one that only gets woise thiough histoiy, is the autonomy that is
affoiueu the lowei level veisus the uppei level. When natuie was peiceiveu as
autonomous, it became uestiuctive. Inueeu this is almost necessaiily the case. "As
soon as one allows an autonomous iealm one finus that the lowei element begins to
eat up the highei,"
S1
says Schaeffei. The pioject of natuial theology, begun in

50
Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006, original
1968).
51
Ibid., 42
SS
Thomas, is eviuence of this uownwaiu move. Theie is, howevei, some iepiieve fiom
the inoiuinate uiviue in the Refoimation with the iecoveiy of an appiopiiate view of
the Fall. In the Refoimation the autonomy of humanity is calleu into question anu
the authoiity of uou is biought back to centei stage.
With Immanuel Kant the uownwaiu sliue begins again. Now the uiviue is no
longei natuie anu giace, but natuie anu fieeuom.
S2
Schaeffei attiibutes this change
to the uispelling of giace fiom society, as cultuie moves fuithei away fiom its
biblical mooiings. The Enlightenment, Kant, Begel, anu moie paiticulaily
Kieikegaaiu, set up the next move to the uiviue between iationality anu faith fiom
natuie anu fieeuom. Kieikegaaiu's push of faith to a level beyonu anu above
iationalism, which iequiies a leap, paves the way foi a total anu complete uiviue
oi chasmbetween the lowei anu uppei stoiy such that one has nothing to uo with
the othei. This histoiy is not meiely of the way theology came to be uone wheie
natuial theology anu paiticulai ievelation aie helu in tension. Rathei, foi Schaeffei
these uiviues accuiately uesciibe not simply what is happening at the philosophical
anu theological levels but also what the common cultuie is coming to embiace.
Thus, when he comes to the mouein situation he uesciibes faith as "totally
sepaiateu fiom the logical anu ieasonable."
SS
Noie than that, whatevei is placeu in
the uppei stoiy makes no ieal uiffeience to life. It is only the lowei stoiy that
matteis. This is the conuition of postmoueinism. The connection is boin out in the
ielativistic tenuencies of the postmouein view. If, as Schaeffei aigues, values anu


52
Ibid., 44.

53
Ibid., 67.
S4
moials have been moveu to the uppei level anu this level is ieally inuiffeient to life,
then ielativism is the natuial moial couise. While people still value the opinions of
science, which iemains in the lowei level anu offeis "facts" about ieality, theie is
inuiffeience to the uiffeiing uppei levelsno one is bettei than anothei, they aie all
equally non-binuing (meaningless in Schaeffei's view). Nancy Peaicey points out
this uiviue as between the public spheie, which is science anu its "value-fiee"
enteipiise, anu the piivate spheie, which is value-lauen anu peisonal piefeience.
S4

She goes on to give a uiagiam of "Touay's two-stoiy tiuth:"
SS

P0STN0BERNISN
Subjective, Relative to Paiticulai uioups

N0BERNISN
0bjective, 0niveisally valiu

The implications foi apologetics is both uaunting anu challenging. In shoit,
an apologetic which seeks to establish the Chiistian faith as something impoitant to
the lowei level of the public spheiesomething which the Chiistian faith itself
takes to be of utmost impoitancewill have to take into consiueiation the iegnant
uiviue anu accommouate the methouology. Not ielegateu to a monolithic view, the
New Atheists can be seen as paiauigmatic of this two-stoiy tiuth. Fuitheimoie, as
one of the populai voices among the uetiactois fiom faith, the New Atheists piesent
challenges to the Chiistian faith that have beaiing on how apologetics is uone.
Continuing the soil uiagnosis iequiies a look into this gioup anu theii majoi


54
Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Chritsianity from its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2004), 20

55
Ibid., 21.
SS
objections is iequiiesince they, anu those they have influenceu, compiise a laige
patch of giounu that neeus seeuing.

The New Atheists: Who Are They?

My goal is not to offer a refutation of the claims made by the New Atheists, rather
it is to briefly sketch their major objections and how this integrates into a postmodern
world. There are great answers to the objections and challenges raised by the New
Atheists and the footnotes and bibliography will point to works worth considering when
seeking a reasonable and reflected answer when challenged to give an account for the
hope within. The New Atheists present a unique challenge to the task of defending the
faith. They show that it is not merely existential answers that are needed in the case for
Christianity, but that the classic work of apologetics still has viabilityif only in a
different way, as I will construe in the next chapter. At this point, however, it will be
important to have an introduction to the New Atheists and their objections to Christian
faith.
The moniker New Atheists may be credited to Gary Wolf of Wired magazine.
In his 2006 article, The Church of the Non-Believers, Wolf writes of the challenge
posed by the new-to-the-publishing-scene atheists to their fellow non-believersget in
the fight and declare the irrationality of religion!
56
Also known as the Four Horsemen
from an informal discussion that took place in 2007, these celebrity New Atheists are
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. A brief
biographical sketch of each is in order.

56
Gary Wolf, The Church of the Non-Believers, Wired, November 2006,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html accessed: 16 September 2011.
S6
Until his recent retirement, Richard Dawkins was the Professor for Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford. His academic training (Ph.D.) and profession, for
which he is well-known and respected, is in evolutionary biology, specifically ethology
(study of animal behavior). Dawkins has been a prolific writer for both science and
atheism with his earliest books more focused on his scientific studies and their
implications for faith. He is perhaps most well known for his work, The God Delusion
(2006). He has, however, published other influential books for atheism and science: The
Selfish Gene (1976), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), and
The Greatest Show on Earth (2009). Dawkins is the current vice president for the British
Humanist Association.
Daniel Dennett is Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and Austin B.
Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University (Medford, MA). Dennett is a
philosopher by trade and training (B.A. and Ph.D.). Philosophy of the mind is Dennetts
discipline and he has written two influential books for atheism: Darwins Dangerous Idea
(1995) and Breaking the Spell (2006).
Sam Harris is the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. Harris has a mixed
background in his academic training with a Bachelors in philosophy and a Ph.D. in
neuroscience. His most influential writings are: The End of Faith (2005), Letter to a
Christian Nation (2008), and The Moral Landscape (2010).
Christopher Hitchens rounds out the last of the Four Horsemen of atheism.
57
He
is the least trained academically but equally well known as a liberal journalist. This
should not detract from our responsibility to hear him and respond. He was a prolific

57
Hitchens passed away 15 December 2011.
S7
writer and speaker whose charisma, intellect, and rhetoric made him popular among
atheists and Christians alike. His most popular book is God is Not Great (2009).
An interesting point in common to all of the New Atheists is that none was raised
in an overtly religious home. Although each did grow up in a nominally religious culture,
none claims to have had a terrible experience with a religious figure. Rather, they came to
non-faith through a process of reason. The objections to faith rationally outweighed any
answers they were given. Alister McGrath has pointed out that it is also worth noting
that its four leading representatives are all Anglo-Saxon Protestant males from
remarkably similar backgrounds of privilege and power.
58
He also observes that they are
all white males, although this does not define the New Atheism.
Their label as New Atheist is a bit of a misnomer since they are not recent
converts to atheism nor do they offer anything new to the charges of atheism against
theism. Indeed, as James Taylor points out: It is difficult to identify anything
philosophically unprecedented in their position and arguments, but the New Atheists have
provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.
59
What does distinguish
them from previous atheists is their commitment to the eradication of religion. It is not
enough that they show belief in God to be false; they also advocate the elimination of
religion per se from the public and private spheres of life. Furthermore, as Alister
McGrath has remarked, the New Atheism cannot be defined or described simply in


58
Alister McGrath, Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running On
Empty? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 36. A fascinating study could be made of the psychological
and/or sociological implications of the demographics of the New Atheists. McGrath gives a couple sources
to further explore this: E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), or from a feminist perspective Beattie, The New Atheists.

59
James E. Taylor, The New Atheists, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 29 January 2010,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/ accessed 16 September 2011.
S8
terms of the canonical writings of the Four Horsemen. Its generated a global
community of individuals who find these authors authoritative and inspirational guides to
the rational and scientific worldview they believe holds the key to the future of the
human race.
60
Because of their far reaching influence (all have been on multiple major
best seller lists and national broadcasts) and the spirit with which their writings have
inspired followers, it is incumbent upon Christians to take notice, consider, analyze, and
respond to the claims these four and their followers are making.

The New Atheists: Why Should We Listen?

Given their shrill sound, unfriendly tone, and lack of novelty, one might wonder
why Christians ought to engage the New Atheists claims at all. A few reasons make
themselves immediately apparent. First, ideas have consequences. The New Atheists are
making claims about the way the world actually isclaims that contradict the view of
life proposed by theists. Either the New Atheists have it correct or the theists do,
61
and
there are implications that follow from either view. These implications are answers to the
transcendent questions of life: meaning, morality, and destiny.
62
Second, due to their
popularity, the New Atheists writers exert influence on the culture. Friends, family,
fellow Christians, and non-believers will have encountered the claims of this atheism. It
should be the response of Christians to offer a reasonable answer to their questions and
challenges. Finally, engagement with challenges forces us to clarify our thinking


60
McGrath, Why God Won't Go Away, 38-9.

61
That is, either there is no god or there is (perhaps that there are many gods should also be
included in the theistic possibility). Given the laws of logic, specifically non-contradiction and excluded
middle, either one or the other is true.

62
Ravi Zacharias, Faith Under Fire: Jesus Among Other Gods, Just Thinking Podcast, 30
August 2011.
S9
regarding the most important issues of life.
63
As Johnson and Reynolds point out, the
church has too often in the past swept under the rug questions of critical discussion
64
with
devastating consequencesthat is, the loss of faith in Christ of those who have not been
given adequate room to question or provided with satisfying answers.
A second question one might well ask is on what authority do the New Atheists
speak? Worded differently, are they qualified to raise the concerns they propose? The
answer to this query is less obvious and perhaps less neat. On the one hand, the
objections they raise must be addressed regardless of the qualifications of the one asking,
else we might commit a fallacy akin to ad hominemit is the claim/objection that is to be
addressed, not the one asking.
65
On the other hand, it does seem that at times the New
Atheists move out of their respective specialties into areas in which they have little
training. This causes them to ask questions that might otherwise be characterized as
illogical at best and jejune at worst.
66
We must again appeal to their ubiquitous presence
in the popular media; qualified or not, they are having an impact and merit our attention.
The theists, specifically Christians, imperative to listen and respond to the New
Atheists stems from the implications of ideas and the influence these ideas have on the


63
Phillip E. Johnson and John Mark Reynolds, Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong About
the New Atheism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010), 8.

64
Ibid, 9.

65
C.S. Lewis coined a name for such a fallacy, Bulverism. Stated positively, Lewis mandated
that you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong (Lewis emphasis).
C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays On Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub Co,
1994), 273.

66
See Terry Eagletons critique of Dawkins God Delusion, Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching,
London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 20 19 October 2006, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-
eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
4u
culture and the church. We turn next to the main objections and claims the New Atheists
make against religion.

The New Atheists: Objections and Claims

The main claims and objections that the New Atheists proclaim can be
generalized into three basic contentions: the problem of evil, the problem of evidence,
and the problem of epistemology. It should be noted that, (1) these are the problems that
the Four Horsemen consistently propose for religion and that there are many more, that
may not fit well in any of the categories I have given, made by followers of and
contemporaries to the four writers listed;
67
and, (2) in this section I will only address the
objections raised by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. John Haught has argued that
Dennetts contentions do not differ from these three and in many ways repeats them.
68
In
discussing the problem of evil, all of the New Atheists make a contribution. However, my
focus will be on the writing of Harris and Hitchens. Dawkins is given to quoting Harris
when discussing this particular problem, but he is more original in the second contention,
where he is the one oft quoted by the other two and therefore will serve as the main voice
for the problem of evidence. The final contention, the problem of epistemology, is less
existential and more philosophical but no less important for the New Atheists. Indeed, it


67
One such charge is the reliability of the scriptural texts. It is my contention that most all
challenges to the Christian faith proposed by New Atheists and their foot soldiers (See McGrath, Why
God Wont Go Away) fall into one of the three categories I give.

68
John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and
Hitchens, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press: 2008), ix-x. This point should not detract from a
reflected and critical engagement with any of the so-called Four Horsemen, nor for that matter anyone who
challenges the faith by repetition of previous challenges. It seems every generation must work out for
themselves challenges and rejoinders concerning the Christian faithincluding both believers and non-
believers. Given this, and the fact that religion attempts to answers questions of most importance to
humans, it ought not bring surprise that challenges and answers are debated.
41
may be the most important since it finds mention in nearly every book, lecture, article,
and debate into which the New Atheists are engaging. It is there that we shall start to set
the groundwork and foundation for the other broad indictments.

The Problem of Epistemology

This first indictment against religion in general I have called the problem of
epistemology because the New Atheists take issue with the very knowledge structures
that faith purports to have. In fact, they challenge that there is a knowledge structure at all
and therefore define faith as wishful thinking or worse, madness. There is a second
reason that epistemology poses a problem: the underlying epistemic structure of the New
Atheists and its role in all their subsequent challenges. At the outset, it seems appropriate
to better define what it meant by epistemology and then to explore the challenge of
faith-as-wishful thinking and finally to probe the epistemological structure from which
the New Atheists work.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that makes sense out of knowledge,
rationality and justified or unjustified beliefs.
69
There is concern for important questions
about knowledge: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What
are its sources? What is the ground of knowledge? What is its structure, and what are its
limits?
70
It explores how knowledge is attainted and whether the process by which one

69
J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For a Christian
Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 72.

70
Matthias Steup, Epistemology, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2005 ed.
Online. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ accessed 19 September 2011; Kenneth D. Boa and
Robert M. Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian
Faith (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2006), 39.
42
comes to know is valid or warranted. Epistemology offers great import to the discussion
precisely because the answers given will directly influence what evidence and arguments
are permitted in the endeavor for truth. Answers to the basic epistemological questions
form the foundation of the noetic structurethe sum total of all that one believes.
71
The
New Atheists challenge this very structure of believers based on their (the atheists)
epistemological framework and hence noetic structure.
In terms of worldview, epistemology and the answers to the questions it raises
appears to be of vital importance. What is accepted as believable is first determined by
how we answer the question of what is knowledge. Although most people will not
actively reflect on their own noetic structure or the answers they give to the
epistemological questions, it is these presuppositions that function initially to adjudicate
in matters of vital importance. It seems that the beginning of all objections to faith have
their presuppositions in epistemologywhether implicit or explicit. This is the point the
New Atheists make: the epistemological framework of the religious is flawed;
72
more
than that, it leads to evil.
The New Atheists contention against faith rests on the ideas of warrant and
justification. We should therefore define what is meant by these two concepts, at least for
the challengers. While they can be differentiated, warrant and justification are often used
synonymously in the New Atheists writings. A belief is justified/warranted if it has been


71
Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching For a Rational Faith (Faith Lessons) (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 21.

72
Nicholas Wolterstorff has classified this objection as the evidentialist objection. His
characterization of this objection and challenge fits well the New Atheists epistemological structure,
furthermore, he points out that this objection is characteristically modernistic (Nicholas Wolterstorff, Can
Belief in God be Rational if it Has No Foundations? in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God,
eds. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1983, reprint
2009], 135-86).
4S
supported by evidence and/or reason. In the New Atheist understanding this means that
beliefs are true, that is, beliefs are warranted and justified, when they are supported by
evidence and reason (the question of what qualifies as evidence will be discussed in the
section on the New Atheists epistemology).

Faith

For the New Atheists, faith is wishful thinking.
73
Although a Christian, Edward
Feser has offered a great definition of the New Atheists version of faith: an
unshakable commitment grounded not in reason but rather in sheer willfulness, a deeply
ingrained desire to want things to be a certain way regardless of whether the evidence
shows they are that way.
74
Their premise is that there is no warrant or justification for
the beliefs delivered by faith. In their own words: faith, according to Dawkins, is the
great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
75
He also describes
faith as a state of mind that leads people to believe somethingit doesnt matter what
in the total absence of supporting evidence.
76
Harris has offered his contribution to the
definition of faith. It is, motivated by credulityunjustified belief [about] matters of
ultimate concernwhat credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from
the constraints of terrestrial discourseconstraints like reasonableness, internal


73
Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (USA: Twelve,
2009), 4.

74
Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (South Bend, IN: St.
Augustines Press, 2010), 6.

75
This is from a lecture by Dawkins titled Lions 10, Christians Nil. It was delivered at the
Edinburgh International Science Festival (1992) and is quoted in McGrath, Why God Wont Go Away, 85.

76
Ibid., 111.
44
coherence, civility, and candor;
77
and nothing more than the license religious people
give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.
78
Their description of faith is
reminiscent of the Kierkegaardian notion of leap of faith. This is not surprising as
Hitchens clearly references this Kierkegaardian leap of faith which he sees as
unsatisfactory to keep belief in spite of evidence. Therefore, religion corrupts faith and
must manipulate reason and confect proofs such as design, revelation, punishments,
and miracles (this charge will be addressed more in detail in the problem of evidence
section).
79
It is clear that the working definition of faith for the New Atheists is belief that
is held without evidence or reason and sometimes in spite of reason and evidence.
Religion, for them, then, rests on fideismthe denial of reasons.

New Atheists Epistemology

The New Atheists accuse the religious of working from a deficient
epistemological structure based on wishful thinking. What, then, do they offer? What is
clear from their problem with religious faith is that any belief must be supported by
evidence and reason. Therefore, it would seem that for the New Atheists, the
epistemological questions that address the grounding of faith are answered with evidence
and reason. Yet, it is not just any evidence that will work, since Hitchens has denied the
claims of religion as positing any evidence even with its proofs.
80
W. K. Cliffords oft


77
Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, 1st Norton pbk. ed.
(New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2005), 65.

78
Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 1st Vintage Books ed. (New York, NY: Vintage,
2008), 67.

79
Hitchens, God is Not Great, 71. Also see Harris, End of Faith, 23.

80
Ibid.
4S
quoted line seems to be the working thesis of the New Atheists: It is wrong always,
everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
81
The key
for the New Atheists is that their definition of sufficient evidence must be followed.
And the evidence the New Atheists desire is only clarified by Harris: it is sensory or
logic.
82
Harris also provides the clearest place where evidence (sensory or logical) can
be found in a response to the eminent agnostic Stephen Jay Gould. It is worth looking at
Goulds proposal and Harris responsethis will indicate clearly the epistemological
direction of the New Atheists.
Gould wrote an article titled, Nonoverlaping Magisteria
83
that was prompted by
an encyclical released by Pope John Paul II. The Popes message was that evolution and
Catholic dogma were in essence compatible. To a large degree, Gould agreed with the
Pope on the basis of his (Goulds) idea of two nonoverlaping magisteria. Picking up on
the language of the Catholic churchs title for the teaching authority, Gould posits two
teaching authorities, science and religion. It was his contention that these two did not
conflict, contrary to popular thought, because there is a lack of overlap between their
respective domains of professional expertisescience in the empirical constitution of the
universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meanings of
our lives.
84
He further clarifies what he means by these two magisteria:


81
Quoted in Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching For a Rational Faith, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1994), 71. Cliffords article is available online and is worth the read,
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

82
Harris, End of Faith, 71

83
Stephen Jay Gould, Nonoverlaping Magisteria, Natural History, 106 (March 1997) Online
www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html accessed 20 September 2011.

84
Ibid.
46
The net of science covers the empirical universe: what it is made of (fact)
and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over
questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not
overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the
magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).
85


Although these two realms do not cross over, they do at times bump up against each
other and provoke what Gould called deep questions that call on both for a full
answer.
86
Harris response to Gould is telling: It is time that all rational people
acknowledge that where claims about the nature of reality are concerned, there is only
one magisterium.
87
The magisterium that Harris has in mind is clearly that of science.
Here is the most lucid statement of the New Atheists underlying principle: only science
provides true knowledge of the world.
Respondents to the New Atheists have often given a clearer picture of the noetic
structure held by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens than they themselves have. Their
worldview is characterized by a presumed scientific naturalism. Scientific naturalism can
be defined as: only nature, including humans and our creations, is real; God does not
exist; and science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality.
88
The
methods of empirical (i.e. physical, sensory observation) verification are the only
legitimate means by which knowledge and therefore beliefs can be formed; such is the
presupposition of the New Atheists and their ilk. This epistemic structure moves beyond
influencing the noetic construction to laying the metaphysic of the New Atheists. This
means that their epistemic assumptions directly affect how they understand the world to

85
Ibid.

86
Ibid. The question he proposes is in relation to evolution: how does the Christians acceptance
of evolution effect her understanding of original sin?

87
Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 111.

88
Haught, God and the New Atheists, x.
47
work. If science is the only authority capable of giving a meaningful (and morally
sufficient) answer to questions of the way the world really is, then any question that
cannot be answered by scientific study is meaningless and irrational (and/or psychotic),
and perhaps even evil, as is the case with religion.
Victor Reppert has helpfully classified the distinction the New Atheists make
between the metaphysic of the atheists and the metaphysic of the religious.
89
In his
article, Confronting Naturalism: the Argument from Reason,
90
Reppert posits two
metaphysics, the nonmentalistic worldview and the mentalistic worldview. These two
views tread on an understanding of what is a basic cause and what are mental states.
Basic causes are causes at rock bottom, in the sense that no underlying explanation is to
be found.
91
Basic causes are parallel to properly basic beliefs in epistemologythey end
the backward regress to find the foundation (hence foundationalism in Descartian
epistemology and following). Mental states are held by agents (rational and personal
entities) and are marked with four characteristics: purpose, intentionality or aboutness,
normativity, and subjectivity. With these two elements defined, we can now look at
Repperts two metaphysicsone held by atheists and the other by theists. First, the
nonmentalistic worldview is one that states no mental states are basic causesheld by
atheists, particularly the New Atheists. This is to say that an agent with mental states is
not at rock bottom the cause or underlying explanation of the way the world is. Rather
the world is materialistic and, Reppert shows, is marked by three characteristics:

89
Hitchens has an entire chapter in his, God is Not Great, on refuting the metaphysic of religion.

90
Victor Reppert, Confronting Naturalism: The Argument from Reason, Contending with
Christianitys Critics: Answering the New Atheists and Other Objections, 27.

91
Ibid.
48
mechanistic, causally closed, where the nonphysical supervenes on the physical. Second,
the theists position, that of a mentalistic worldview, is one that has mental states as basic
causes. The theists presume the world, at its base/foundation, is explained and caused by
an agent.
One more voice provides clarity to the epistemology of the New Atheists. Alister
McGrath has pointed out that the New Atheists presupposition is one of scientism or
scientific imperialism. He defines this as the view that science can solve all our
problems, explain human nature, or tell us whats morally good. It claims that all thats
known or can be known is capable of verification or falsification using the scientific
method.
92
The view the New Atheists hold on epistemology, and subsequently the
world, is clearly in focus. This view sets the stage for all their subsequent challenges to
the faith. The single challenge that flows most naturally from this scientific imperialism
in a nonmentalistic world is their charge of the problem of evidence.

The Problem of Evidence

This charge has much in common and indeed follows from the New Atheists
epistemology. The problem can be stated in two facets: first they charge that the evidence
shows that there is no God, and second that there is no positive evidence for the existence
of God. Plantinga has termed these two types of objections as de facto and de jure.
93
De
facto objections challenge the truth of Christianity; whereas de jure

92
McGrath, Why God Wont Go Away, 117. McGrath is not alone in connecting the New Atheists
to scientism. James Taylor also points this out in The New Atheists in Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, under the section headed, Faith and Reason (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/).

93
Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000),
498.
49
are arguments or claims to the effect that Christian belief, whether or not
true, is at any rate unjustifiable, or rationally unjustified, or irrational, or
not intellectually respectable, or contrary to sound morality, or without
sufficient evidence, or in some other way rationally unacceptable, not up
to snuff from an intellectual point of view.
94


We will first look at the de facto objections to faith that the New Atheists bring to the
table.

Evidence for No God

This is the positive case that the Atheists produce to prove that God does not
exist. It has been noted that the New Atheists, in general, do not put forth any positive
case, rather they offer only critique of theistic beliefs. Although it is true that their works
are mostly devoted to critiquing the theistic enterprise, the New Atheists do produce
works that make a positive case for atheism.
95
Their largest claim to proof for the
nonexistence of God is scientific, specifically in the field of evolution.
Evolution and natural selection serve as proof positive for the atheistic worldview.
Indeed, as Dawkins has said, Although atheism might have been logically tenable before
Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
96
Darwins
theory of natural selection serves for the atheist, at least the New Atheists, as the best
possible explanation for the origins of life and this serves to prove there is no God. In
fact, for Dawkins it is the only explanation that is in principle capable of explaining the

94
Ibid, ix.

95
To be sure, this often does not look similar to Christian apologetics. In fact, Hitchens, and others
have lamented that they have to defend a worldview at all since it is their stance that they simply do not
believe in something. His defense is that one would not have to prove the nonexistence of unicorns so why
should he prove the nonexistence of God. Edward Feser has done well to respond to this rather jejune
philosophical position. See Feser, The Last Superstition.

96
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe
Without Design (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 6.
Su
existence of organized complexity [i.e. life].
97
He goes further than mere life on our
planet: Natural selections explanatory power is not just about life on this planet: it is the
only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet.
98

For Dawkins the reason this explanation is so powerful is that its explanation ratio is
low. What he means is that the assumptions necessary for the explanation to work are less
complicated than the explanation itselfthe explanation does not require greater
explanation.
99
This, he says, is not true of any theistic explanation, least of which is that
of design. His position is that any theistic explanation requires even more complicated
assumptions and explanations to work. This is seen clearest in his response to Aquinas
Five Ways.
100
Dawkins has characterized these five ways as (1) the unmoved mover,
(2) the uncaused cause, (3) the cosmological argument, (4) the argument from degree,
and (5) the teleological argument or argument from design.
101
The first three suffer from
the same problem, namely, that they make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God
himself is immune to the regress.
102
Aquinas had pointed out that there cannot be an
infinite regresssome thing (or someone) had to begin the process. The New Atheists


97
Ibid, 103.

98
Richard Dawkins, Why Darwin Matters, The Guardian, 08 February 2008, Online
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1, accessed 14 September 2011.

99
Ibid.

100
The five ways of Aquinas offer five different kinds of evidence that can be accounted for
only on the basis of Gods existence. The evidence marshaled in the five arguments include change,
motion, contingency, cause, and morality/goodness. These natural phenomena force one to conclude that
there must be a Creator of all that is but that is not itself createdEach of the five ways argues from facts
about the created order to the Creator. Aquinas assumed that all rational creatures would accept these
arguments if they were in fact acting rationally [Kelly James Clark, Richard Lints and James K.A.
Smith, 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance For Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster /
John Knox Press, 2004), 7].

101
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 100-3.

102
Ibid, 101.
S1
wonder how is it that God began. They reason that if God created everything, then who
created God? As Hitchens opines, the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the
unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator.
103
Not only
does theism not account for God through classical creationism but neither does design
gain purchase:
A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because
any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough
to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an
infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape.
104



No Evidence for God

The point that there is no evidence for God is made repeatedly throughout all of
the New Atheists works. This point is most often made in conjunction with the charge
that faith is irrational. Thus it is closely related to the New Atheists epistemology.
Indeed, it follows almost determinedly from the view that only science (empirical
verification) can give true knowledge of the world. It is under this premise that the New
Atheists respond to the positive scientific claims made by theists and dismiss them as
non-evidence. Hitchens has shown us this with his comment that religion fabricates
proofs and with his assertion that religion is man-made.
105
It is for this very reason
that no evidence can be offered for the existence of a God. Further, this means that the
religious are solipsistic. As Hitchens asks, How much vanity must be concealednot
too effectively at thatin order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine

103
Hitchens, God is Not Great, 71.

104
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 136.

105
Hitchens, God is Not Great, 10, 54.
S2
plan?
106
It is precisely because faith rests on groundless and reasonless belief that
there can be no evidence offered. Harris asks, Is a person really free to believe in a
proposition for which he has no evidence? No. Evidence (whether sensory or logical) is
the only thing that suggests that a given belief is really about the world in the first
place.
107
It is in this way that this objection, that there is no evidence for God, is
classified as a de jure objection according to Plantingas characterization. This lack of
evidence, Harris contends, is what regularly brings out the worst in us.
108
This is the
subject of their next major objection.

The Problem of Evil

This challenge comes in a couple different forms and in general the New Atheists
turns their focus on only one. To lay the ground work we will look at what is the
deductive and inductive problem of evil and then turn to the New Atheists assertion of
religious evil. The first look will be brief enough to give a broad stroke of the general
problem. In the second, however, we will allow the New Atheists to speak for themselves
as they characterize the problem of evil. It should be clear that the New Atheists are
moral realists, that is, they hold that morality (good and evil) actually existsthere is
such a thing as being right and wrong.
109



106
Ibid, 7.
107
Harris, End of Faith, 72.

108
Harris, End of Faith, 26.

109
They tread on this quite heavily when accusing religion of evilthey really believe religion is
evil this is not just their opinion. Incidentally, Dawkins has stated that evil and good do not exist, There is
at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifferenceWe are machines for
propagating DNAit is every living objects sole reason for being [quoted in William Lane Craig,
Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God, God is Good, God is Great: Why Believing in God is
Reasonable and Responsible, ed. William Lane Craig and Chad Meister (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009),
SS

Deductive and Inductive Problem of Evil

In times past atheists have articulated the problem of evil deductively. For
example, David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion characterized the
problem of evil in what has become known as the classical deductive argument. Perhaps
Epicurus was the first to state the problem in the third-century B.C.:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want
to. If he wants to, but cannot he is impotent. If he can, but does not want
to, he is wicked, If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it,
why is there evil in the world?
110


With some modification, this is what that argument looks like in deductive form:
111


1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (wholly good) and
omniscient (all-knowing).
2. If God is omnipotent, God can eliminate evil.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, God would want to eliminate evil.
4. If God is omniscient, God knows how to eliminate evil.
5. There is evil.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The New Atheists rarely use this argument directly when combating religion but, they do
mention it sometimes. Indeed, Dawkins does not consider the classical argument against
theism to be the best argument because it is childishly easy to overcome the problem of
evil. Simply postulate a nasty godsuch as the one who stalks every page of the Old
Testament.
112
Harris, however, used this challenge in his debate with William Lane
Craig (7 April 2011) concerning the grounding of objective morals. He states,

18]. However, Dawkins does take issue with the evils perpetrated by religion. This places him in the moral
realist category, even if inconsistently with his own views.
110
Quoted in, Chad Meister, God, Evil and Morality, God is Good, God is Great, 107.


111
This is a combination of two renditions of the deductive problem of evil from, Evil, Problem
of, in 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology, 25 and Nash, Faith and Reason,
178.

112
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 135.
S4
Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in
this way [in terror and agony], and their parents to grieve in this way [their
prayers for their child unanswered], either can do nothing to help them, or
doesnt care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil [i.e. not God].
113


Similarly, the inductive problem finds little use, directly stated, in New Atheists
work. It is worth noting the structure and flow of this argument because the New Atheists
do work from its shoulders in their own accusations against religion. Nash has provided a
good simple delineation of the argument: Given the amount of evil we find in the
worldto say nothing of the apparent senselessness of much of this evilit seems
improbable or unlikely that the world was created by or is supported in its existence by a
good, omnipotent, omniscient God.
114
Here we can already see that there are two
characteristics of the inductive problem, the quantity of evil and the quality of evil. Either
there is too much evil in the sense of amount or there is too much evil that is gratuitous,
or perhaps both, for there to be a good and all-powerful God. The New Atheists problem
with religion in general and God in particular is that there is too much evil not simply
going on in the world but actually perpetrated by religion for it or God to be true.

Religion is Evil

This is perhaps the loudest argument the New Atheists shout in every recent work
of theirs. Hitchens subtitles his book How Religion Poisons Everything and this is the
mantra of that work, repeating it anytime he makes an argument against religion.
Through their writings, it becomes clear that religion is not merely evil because religious
people do evil, but it is evil because it endorses and even commands evil. We will look at

113
The debate can be found on youtube.com or on Craigs website:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8877; this similar reasoning also
appears in Harris Letter to a Christian Nation, 55.

114
Nash, Faith and Reason, 196.
SS
what each of the Four Horsemen (Dennett not included) has to say about the evils of
religion through their own sound-bites. Hitchens, with his rhetorical flare, will begin.
Early in his book, God is Not Great, Hitchens begins his attack on the morality of
religion and belief in God because it has caused great suffering. We know for a
factthat religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no
better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would
make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic-cleanser raise an eyebrow.
115
Showing forth his true
knack for writing, he pens this biting criticism: religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free
inquiry, contemptuous of woman and coercive toward children.
116
However, this is to be
expected when the Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic
cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre.
117
On the basis
of its sacred texts, religion persecutes humanity in ways reminiscent of the species
childhood where the desire was, and now is in religion, to see everything smashed up
and ruined and brought to naught.
118
This is why religion poisons everything; it is bent
on the destruction of humanity under the guise of a divine command.
An oft-quoted line from Dawkins provides a concise summary of his opinion of
religion, specifically the Christian religion and God:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control
freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic,

115
Hitchens, God is Not Great, 6.

116
Ibid, 56.

117
Ibid, 102.

118
Ibid, 57.
S6
homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
119


Religion is so terrible precisely because this is a fiction and people read it literally and
seek to obey this man-made document.
Harris also takes his initial point of challenge with the Christian scriptures.
Religion is evil and the Bible commands it to be. Christians have abused, oppressed,
insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the
basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.
120
The End of Faith has an entire
chapter dedicated to the ills of religion. Here, Harris, begins a line of argument that starts
with how the Bible commands execution of dissenters. A literal reading of the Old
Testament not only permits but requires heretics to be put to death; and Deuteronomy
explicitly enjoins the faithful to murder anyone in their midst, even members of their
own families, who possess a sympathy for foreign gods.
121
This naturally sets the stage
for Christians to persecute heretics, starting with the Jews. As Harris argues, it was the
common opinion of the early Christians, and even the Bibles teaching (cf. 1Thess 2.14-
16), that the Jews were the killers of the Messiah and by their very existence they served
as a denial of Jesus Messiahship.
122
Anti-Semitism is as integral to church doctrine as
the flying buttress is to the Gothic cathedral, and this terrible truth has been published in
Jewish blood since the first centuries of the Common Era.
123
The torture of the
Inquisition and witch hunts follow as a natural consequence from the command to

119
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 51.

120
Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 23

121
Harris, The End of Faith, 82.

122
Ibid, 92-3.

123
Ibid, 92.
S7
execute heretics, and finding endorsement in one of Christianitys most influential early
Fathers, Augustine.
124
The next step Harris makes is to show that based on the Old
Testament, the command to kill heretics, the endorsement of torture from Augustine, and
anti-Semitism, it is no wonder that the church does not speak out against the holocaust of
the 20
th
century:
When we consider that so few generations had passed since the church left
off disemboweling innocent men before the eyes of their families, burning
old women alive in public squares, and torturing scholars to the point of
madness for merely speculating about the nature of the stars, it is perhaps
little wonder that it failed to think anything had gone terribly amiss in
Germany during the war years.
125


But what of Jesus teaching on love, one might ask. Harris has given the resolution to the
mystery and his conclusion in the argumentreligion is evil, because of its texts and
its founders:
The question of how the church managed to transform Jesus principal
message of loving ones neighbor and turning the other cheek into a
doctrine of murder and rapine seems to promise a harrowing mystery; but
it is no mystery at all. Apart from the Bibles heterogeneity and outright
self-contradiction, allowing it to justify diverse and irreconcilable aims,
the culprit is clearly the doctrine of faith itself.
126


Since for Harris faith is not based in reality (there is no evidence or reason) and Jesus
also endorses fully the commands in the Old Testament (contrary to his other teachings
a testament to the heterogeneity and outright self-contradiction), there should be no
mystery as to why Christians both accept the command to love and kill the dissenter.

124
Ibid, 85 (Harris does not quote Augustine; rather he refers the reader to P. Johnsons A History
of Christianity).

125
Ibid, 105.

126
Ibid, 85.
S8
It is the nature of religion, according to the Four Horsemen, to destroy and
propagate the destruction of human flourishing. It is a danger to reason and morality and
as such is evil. This is the clear message of the New Atheists to which the Christian must
respond.

Current Methods in Apologetics

With the lay of the land broadly sketched, an exploration of the avenues used to
navigate the current landscape can be undertaken. In this section I will briefly explore the
prevailing apologetic methods
127
that are in current usage and evaluate their relevant
effectiveness in navigating the changing and new landscape given by postmodernism,
post-Christendom, and the New Atheists.
When attempting to offer a taxonomy of apologetic methods it is important to
bear in mind the warning of Norman Geisler against attempting to create logically
exhaustive categories of apologetic systems.
128
Various Christian apologists have found
themselves in multiple categories of apologetic taxonomies, which should indicate that,
although there are important differences that need to be accounted for, there is not one
neat and tidy taxonomy that encompasses all the variant approaches to defending the
faith. The main approaches that I examine here have been influenced by the taxonomies
offered by Steven Cowan,
129
Kenneth Boa, Robert Bowman,
130
and James Beilby.
131


127
The endeavor here is to examine contemporary apologetic methodologies. I recognize that the
modern scene is not the first to do apologetics and that there may be great insights from the methods of
classic apologists. The approach here is to see if the current methods are appropriate for the current cultural
milieu, thus I give no space to a historical exploration of apologetics. For an adequate treatment of
historical apologetics see Avery Cardinal Dulles, A History of Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Pub., 1999).

128
Norman Geisler, s.v. Apologetics, Types of, in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 41.

S9
Each offers a slightly different take on how the various methods are to be distinguished
and each offers a brief history of those who have sought to create apologetic taxonomies.
Perhaps the most accessible snapshot of these variations and their respective proponents
is found in Boa and Bowman. In the appendix they offer a chart of apologetic taxonomies
with the respective proponent.
132
I include that chart here, with some editing to add
Beilby, as a clear picture of the broad approaches to apologetics.
Boa &
Bowman
Classical Evidential Reformed Fideist
Ramm
133
Reason Revelation Experience
Lewis
134
Rational
Empiricism
Pure
Empiricism
Rationalism &
Revelational
Authoritarianism
Mysticism
Geisler Classical Evidential &
Historical
Presuppositional Experiential
Cowan Classical Evidential &
Cumulative
Case
Presuppositional
& Reformed
Epistemology

Beilby Evidentialist Presuppositionalist Experientialist

Each writer offers his own rationale as to why he classifies a particular method in
the way he does, but, in general, they all have to do with the question of epistemology
and method of argumentation. According to these authors interpretations how each

129
Steven B. Cowan, Introduction, in Five Views on Apologetics, Counterpoints, eds. Stanley N.
Gundry and Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 7-20.

130
Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Faith Has its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to
Defending the Christian Faith 2
nd
ed., An Apologetics Handbook (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster,
2006).

131
James K. Beilby, Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What It Is And Why We Do It
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011).

132
Boa and Bowman, Faith Has its Reasons, 533.

133
Bernard Ramm, Types of Apologetic Systems (Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1953) and
Varieties of Christian Apologetics: An Introduction to the Christian Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1962).

134
Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianitys Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics
(Chicago, IL: Moody, 1976)
6u
apologist approaches the questions of epistemology and argumentation determines which
category he belongs to in the taxonomy. I will follow Beilbys taxonomy, not simply for
the sake of simplicity but also because, as Craig points out in his final reflection in Five
Views on Apologetics, there is remarkable convergence of views.
135
There are,
however, differences that create legitimate distinctions. To those differences I now
turn.
136


Evidentialist

The evidentialist approach places an emphasis on rational arguments and
evidence. Typically, this approach takes a two or three-step method. The first step is to
argue for the basics of logic and argumentation (philosophical and epistemic common
ground). The second step attempts to establish theism in general. And the final step
gives support for the Christian view of reality in particular. Some proponents condense
steps one and two into a single move and thus evidentialism can be a two-step method.
Beilby gives three main ideas that summarize the evidentialist method. The first is
anthropological: humans are created as rational beings and cannot commit themselves to
what they believe to be false; therefore, rational and evidential arguments for the faith
are a crucial element of an apologetic for Christianity.
137
The second has to do with the
defeaters that Christianity faces. Since there are intellectual objections to belief in God
and Christianity, there is a need for well-reasoned and well-supported responses. The

135
William Lane Craig, Closing Remarks, in Five Views on Apologetics, 317.

136
These explorations will be brief and as such will not do justice to the nuanced and complex
issues and views that go into each approach. Furthermore, more division could be made within each
category (as Beilby, Boa, and Bowman note). To explore these perspectives in more depth see Five Views
on Apologetics, which offers a very comprehensive explanation for each approach by a current apologist
from that view.

137
Beilby, Christian Apologetics, 96.
61
third and final point is practical: rational and evidential arguments can be very effective
in overcoming peoples objections to the faith and, at times, in encouraging people to
take a step of faith itself.
138
Current Christians who practice some form of evidentialistic
apologetics are William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, Gary Habermas, John
Warwick Montgomery, Paul Feinberg, and Richard Swinburne.
139

Nicholas Wolterstorff points out that it is not until the modern period with the rise
of the evidentialist objection that Christian apologists begin to respond with
evidentialist arguments. Thus the rise of evidentialist apologetics comes from the peculiar
challenges first seen in the modern era.
140
If this is the case, then evidentialist apologetics
is a particular kind of response to a particular kind of objection. However, those who
espouse an evidentialist approach would most likely disagree with Wolterstorff that
evidentialistic approaches are new to the apologetic scene. Indeed, as Boa and Bowman
point out, evidentialists (classical in their view) appeal to Justin Martyr, Anselm, and
Thomas Aquinas as historical Christian theologians who practiced a method of
apologetics that used evidences and argumentation.
141
What can be seen in the
discrepancy here is a shift in the evidentialist strategy after the Enlightenment and into

138
Ibid.

139
Books that offer the best introduction to this apologetic approach are: Norman Geisler,
Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1976); R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur
Lindsley, Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984); Norman Geiler and Frank Turek, I
Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004); William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics 3
rd
ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008); Peter J. Kreeft
and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith (San
Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 2009); Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for
Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011).

140
Wolterstorff, Can Belief in God be Rational? 137.

141
Boa and Bowman, Faith has its Reasons, 50.
62
Modernism. In any case, from a historical perspective, evidentialist apologetics has seen
a boon in the post-Enlightenment era.

Presuppositional

The presuppositional method is most characteristically used by the Reformed
theological tradition. As one of the most eminent presuppositional apologists, Cornelius
Van Til has pointed out that ones theological traditionas a starting pointwill be
determinative for ones apologetic method.
142
For this view there is no common ground
between the unbeliever and the believer. The two are separated by a chasm of worldview
difference where the non-believers view serves to suppress and deny the truth of the
Christianity. Thus, according to the presuppositionalist, says Beilby, the problem with
the non-Christian is not a lack of good reasons but innate sinfulness manifested in
rebellion against God, a rebellion that first and foremost amount to a refusal to
acknowledge Gods proper place.
143
With this view, then, the presuppositional approach
gives no room for evidences in the classical sense; since there is no common epistemic
ground upon which the unbeliever will take the presuppositions of Christianity. In this
way, the presuppositional approach reminds apologists that every worldview system has,
at is base, presumed premises and the drastically different basic beliefs of non-believers
and their sinful condition allows for no rational engagement in the best evidentialist
sense. This does not lead presuppositionalists to fideism, rather they offer a
transcendental argument. It is not an argument for God but a reductio ad absurdum
argument where the purpose is to show the absurdity of a worldview that lacks the proper

142
Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2
nd
ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Pub., 2003), 101.

143
Beilby, Christian Apologetics, 99.
6S
place and authority of God. The only concept that makes sense of reality is Gods
existence and authority.
Proponents of this view trace it back to Augustine and find particular support in
the Reformers, especially Calvin. Karl Barth further influences certain strains of
presuppositionalism, but the most prominent practitioner of this method was Cornelius
Van Til, who would influence those who followed him, such as Greg Bahnsen, John
Frame, Gordon Clark, Carl Henry, and Francis Schaeffer.
144


Experiential

The experientialist take on how apologetics is practically employed differs most
drastically from the evidentialist approach but also parts ways with the presuppositional
method. From this perspective, one does not need evidences or rational arguments to
know the truth of Christianity. Neither does one need to presuppose the axioms of
Christianity in order to accept the implications of the Christian worldview. Rather, what
is needed is an experience of God. In this way, Christianity is not a argument to concede
to or a presupposition to ground epistemic structures, it is rather something that must be
dynamically experienced. The conclusion that experiential apologetics is an existential
argument for fideismunderstood as the denial of reason, logic, or rationalityis to be
cast off. This is not what experiential apologetics is aboutthe rejection of reason. In this
regard, C. Steven Evans has offered two categories of fideism one of which is appropriate
for this apologetic approach, the other of which is a false label. Irrational fideism, says

144
Helpful books from this perspective are: Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, ed. K.
Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2008) and Christian Apolgoetics 2
nd
ed., ed. Wiliam Edgar
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2003); John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 1994); Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed.
Robert R. Booth (Atlanta, GA and Texarkana, AK: American Vision and Covenant Media Foundation,
1996).
64
Evans, denies that we can or should think rationally or logically about matter of
faith.
145
On the other hand, rational fideism offers a reasoned case for viewing faith as
justified even though what it believes is above, beyond, or in some sense against
reason.
146
The Christian faith, then, is a worldview that is ultimately accepted on faith
and experience, rather than on rational (evidentialist) or authority (presuppositionalist)
structures.
Two main arguments come from this particular approach to the apologetic task.
First is the argument from religious experience. There is such a ubiquity of those who
have some kind of religious experience that it is reasonable to conclude that there must be
some ground to that experience, namely God. Kai-Man Kwan, Chinese Christian
philosopher, has summarized this argument well: The argument from religious
experience contends that given the appropriate premises, we can derive from the religious
experiences of humankind a significant degree of epistemic justification for the existence
of God.
147
The second is the argument to religious experience. Here the idea is that to
truly know the Christian faith, one must actually experience God. The idea is to try on
for size the Christian faith and judge it based on experience. At the heart of the
experiential method is the idea that Christian truth is fundamentally not some body of
knowledge, but Somebody to know.
148
In other words, God is not just a hypothesis for

145
Boa and Bowman, Faith has its Reasons, 337; see C. Steven Evans, Faith Beyond Reason: A
Kierkegaardian Account, Reason & Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

146
Ibid., 338.

147
Kia-Man Kwan, The Argument form Religious Experience, in The Blackwell Companion to
Natural Theology, eds. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 498.
Kwans chapter is a philosophically sophisticated rigorous and logical defense of the argument from
religious experience.

148
Boa and Bowman, Faith has its Reasons, 366.
6S
the religiously devoted. He is a Living Reality who permeates all their lives.
149
That is,
the truth is ultimately a person, Jesus Christ. Knowledge is not simply about Jesus but it
is knowing Jesus. This kind of knowledge only comes by experience.
In terms of influential experientialists, proponents of this view point to the Early
Christian Father Tertullian, the Reformer Martin Luther, as well as Blaise Pascal, Sren
Kierkegaard, Karl Barth,
150
and Donald Bloesch.

Analysis

With the broad strokes painted an analysis of the differing methods can be done.
The endeavor here is to evaluate each broad approach as to its ability to meet the unique
challenges of the current cultural milieu. No one approach has been unanimously
accepted as the apologetic method for Christian. Indeed, most apologists use methods
from more than one, and sometimes all, approach in seeking to defend the Christian faith.
In this sense, I recognize that no one method in the taxonomy chart is an attempt to be the
end-all, be-all of apologetic method. Still, the question remains as to whether they are
meeting the challenges posed today and in what way they may be failing and how a
Pentecostal approach can fill in the remaining gaps.

Evidentialist


149
Kwan, The Argument form Religious Experience, 498.

150
Like C.S. Lewis (who is seen as an evidentialist or experientialist depending on who is charting
the approaches), Karl Barth is adopted by differing groups. Boa and Bowman list him as a fideist (in the
positive sense of Evans) [Faith has its Reasons, 351-8], whereas Beilby implies he leans toward a
presuppositionalist tactic [Christian Apologetics, 103] (Beilby does not list him among the
presuppositionalists but notes his debate with Brunner as influential for the presuppositional trajectory).
This shows the fluid character of the differing approaches to apologetics and how any one person resists
being categorically proclaimed as one monolithic practitioner. Thus, I leave him among this list to show the
diversity of opinions and theologians.
66
Evidentialism brings many strengths to the apologetic task. At base people want
to know that what they believe in is rational and has good evidence. As the evidentialists
point out, no one believes that for which they have reasons and evidence against (at least
no one whose rational capacity is functioning properly). This method accounts for how
natural phenomenon, and philosophical reasoning can bring strong support to the defense
of the Christian faith. Furthermore, there are still defeaters presented against
Christianitynot the least of which come by way of the New Atheiststhat necessitate a
response in kind. Evidential apologetics does this. The capacity for humans to process
and understand natural theology is taken seriously by the evidentialist. Indeed, for some,
Christianity is rational, eminently rational.
151
Herein is where the evidentialist method
disconnects from the current cultural reality.
To be sure, Christianity is rational, which is to say that it is not irrational. More
strongly, Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley explain that in their view Christianity is not only
rational but also includes concern for the heart.
152
The latter conception, however, does
not come through as clearly in their work. It is obvious that for the classical apologetic
(or evidentialist) the mind plays a primary role in the apologetic endeavor. The
unfortunate presupposition of this is that humans are basically thinking things. The
rationalist overtone of evidentialist apologetic is not missed by David Clark in his review
of Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley. As he says, Despite explicitly disclaiming

151
R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of
the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984),
ix.

152
Ibid. I choose Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley to interact with in this section due to their
cogency in presenting the evidentialist method and their response to Presuppositionalism. This structure in
their book offers the evidentialist view in very clear terms and exposes, at least some of, their presupposed
premises.
67
rationalism, the authors assume the mind functions without much handicap.
153
As other
evidentialists are wont to do, their appeal to the laws of logic as the foundation of
apologetics assumes that simply giving arguments that remain within the confines of
logic (and more on their view: arguments that are valid and true) will suffice to convince.
Indeed, they ask credulously, What objection is there against logical compulsion? What
is logic if not compelling?
154
The failure here, as with other evidential approaches, is to
inadequately account for the holistic factor that makes up the human person that are just
as influential, and sometimes more so, in accepting conclusions from logical force. If
humans were in fact only intellect, then the force of logic would be undeniable.
Furthermore, if it were as these authors describe itthe intellect is primary in terms of
orderthen logic would be the only necessary tool in apologetics. However, it is
decidedly not the case that logic, reason, or the intellect are the sole arbiter of decisions.
This is all the more the case in a postmodern milieu where the objectivity of reason is a
fundamental question.
An apologist who takes an evidentialist approach, William Lane Craig (to be fair,
he prefers the designation classical approach), makes great use of probability when
making arguments for Gods existence or the historical validity of Jesuss resurrection.
155

In statistics or mathematics, probability may prove to be very helpful, or even in cases
where little is at stakethose instances where determining something by probability

153
David K. Clark, review of Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith
and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, by R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley,
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 3 (September 1986), 326-7, ATLA Religion
Database, EBSCOhost http://0-
search.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000544888&site=e
host-live

154
Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, Classical Apologetics, 127.

155
Craig explains probability and Bayess Theorem in Reasonable Faith, 53-55.
68
costs very little psychologically, emotionally, etc. An example of probability in terms of
low cost is the weather report from the local news channel. If it is reported in the morning
that the chance (probability) for rain today is 90%, then making the appropriate changes
to accommodate this information ranks low on the psychological cost factorone simply
needs to wear the correct attire and perhaps carry an umbrella. However, the existence of
God, especially the Christian God, requires much more from a person than a simple
change of clothes or apparatus. Thus the probabilistic statement that the existence of God
is greater than, say, .8 (or 80%, which would be very high in terms of probability) is, as
Beilby states, insufficient for grounding the level of commitment that accompanies
biblical faith.
156
Moreover, when defending the Christian faith it is a person who is at
the center and humans do not approach personal relationships based on probability
statements. The statement, The probability that my wife loves me is .92, is not how I
know I am loved by my wife (and my wife is happy for that!); rather I know her love
through a multitude of means, the least of which is statistical probability.
157
This kind of
evidentialism, while perhaps useful in formal debate to show that Gods existence is more
probable than not, does not engage the postmodern person who is suspicious of logic as a
move of power, for example.
Thus, the evidentialist approach, while retaining positive strengthens, does not
address well the current Western culture. By resting on a foundational premise that


156
Beilby, Christian Apologetics, 105.

157
In fairness to W.L. Craig, he does point out that it is not by such means (probability or even
rational argumentation), or even apologetics, that one knows Christianity to be true. Rather it is through the
self-authenticating inner witness of the Holy Spirit which confirms the truth of Gods existence (Craig,
Reasonable Faith, 43).
69
elevates the intellect to a place of primacy, evidentialism creates greater distance between
the postmodern person and the apologetic for Christian faith.

Presuppositionalist

In contrast to the evidentialists tactic, the presuppositionalist denies that reason
serves as the common ground upon which apologetics builds its case and thus is more
careful to avoid rationalistic tendencies. This is surely a strength. The recognition of the
effect of sin on not only the moral capacity of humans but also on the rational capacity of
humans helps to prevent the presuppositionalist from elevating reason to a level of
primacy akin to rationalism. Also, the recognition that all people have some
presupposition upon which they have built their worldview opens the way for the idea
that more than arguments are necessary for apologetics. In this view, the presuppositional
method can take a more holistic approach to what it means to be humanthey often
recognize that there are deeper issues at work in the human person than logical arguments
can address.
One of the greatest critiques of presuppositionalism has been circularity. Much
ink has been spilt between the two apologetic camps of evidentialism and
presuppositionalism and the aim here is not to rehash these discussions. Suffice it to say,
those in the presuppositionalist group have defended against the charge of circularity, but
the fact that the charge is being made by thinking skeptics and Christians shows a
potential weakness. In this regard, it is important to remember that while humans are not
only rational, they are also not less than rational. To this end, presuppositionalism has
purchase power in the right setting and Postmodernism, with its question of objectivity,
gives room for the presuppositional approach. There can be, however, a tendency to
7u
overstate the effect of sin. It is far from obvious, Beibly states, that the unbelievers
failure to presuppose Gods existence, authority, and revelation make it impossible for
them to understand truths about the physical world and even about important aspects of
the spiritual world.
158
The over emphasis on sins impact to the rational structure of
humans can lead to another weakness most evident in the postmodern milieu.
Presuppositionalists can present a case that divides believer and non-believers drastically
and, although no apologist who claims to be a presuppositionalist actually claims to be in
a better position than the non-believerquite the opposite to be fairthe unbelieving
postmodern can understand the presuppositionalist as implying that the unbeliever is
unequal, thus feeding into the postmodern reaction against metanarrative or power-play
through knowledge and language.
Therefore, presuppositionalism can be both at home in the current cultural climate
and a stranger. Many presuppositionalists are happy to be considered strangers but fail to
realize the negative image portrayed to the non-Christian, one that puts the apologist in
the modern mind, distant, disconnected, and disinterested in authentic dialogue.

Experientialist

Connecting with people on more than the intellectual level is one of the great
strengths of the experiential approach. Personal experience with something can often
leave the greatest impressions. Consider the Grand Canyon or Mt Everest; one can know
in great detail all the important facts about these places, but until a visit is made and the
grandeur experienced, something distinct is lacking. This is more so with a person, who
is dynamic not static like a mountain or canyon. The appeal of the experientialist to the

158
Ibid.
71
non-believer to encounter God moves the knowledge of God gained in such an encounter
beyond the rational into the core of a person. Surely, this strength resonates very well in
the postmodern context of spirituality and existentialism.
To be sure, there is also a weakness imbedded in this approach: How is one to
determine if the experience is really God, or the even Christian God and not some other
deity or force? The charge of fideism in the pejorative sense does not ring entirely hollow
for experientialism. That is to say, does one take the experience of God as self-
authenticating and thus based purely on faithwithout any real rational way to
adjudicate it? Although experientialism does not have to degenerate to fideism in the
pejorative sense, it is harder to avoid this in view of other experiences, which stand in
contradistinction from the particularly Christian view. Furthermore, the question of how
experientialism addresses the New Atheists does not seem to have a clear answer.
Perhaps the experiential approach fits will in some postmodern contexts, but it does not
respond to the problem of evil as given by Sam Harris, for example.
Therefore, like the methodologies above, experientialism fits well in some ways
and is disconnected in other ways. The conclusion to be drawn from this is simply that no
one method is the right way of doing apologetics. However, the broader conclusion that
an anthropologically holistic approach is necessary is clear. The question I seek to answer
is if a Pentecostal approach is anthropologically holistic and in touch with the cultural
atmosphere.

A Pentecostal Reflection

A Pentecostal would find herself more at home in the experiential and
presuppositional approaches. Evidentialism is not the heart of Pentecostalism. This is not
72
to say that Pentecostals do not value evidences and rational arguments. Rather, primarily
Pentecostals theologize based on an encounter with God. Therefore, an approach to
apologetics from a Pentecostal point of view will have commonality with the three broad
methods above but will resonate more with experiential and presuppositional approaches.
Experiential is more obvious, but how does Pentecostalism find commonality with a
tradition of apologetics that is consistently Reformed? The answer to this will be clearer
in the following chapter but suffice it to say here that because Pentecostals place
emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification, and due to the
influence of John Wesley, they have a view of sin that finds commonality with the
Reformed tradition. The noetic effects of sin on the unbeliever, as characterized by
Reformed thinkers, is not out of place with Pentecostal thinking and thus there is more
common ground between Pentecostals and presuppositionalists than there may seem at
first. With this said, Pentecostal apologetics is not simply an eclectic approach,
combinationalism,
159
or an integrative approach,
160
rather Pentecostals bring a unique
element to the table that will be explored in the next chapter.


Conclusion

David Clark asks, Can there be a postmodern evangelical apologetics? With
him, we affirm, indeed there can be. This approach will look different from previous
generations but will stand on their shoulders. The New Atheists propose a new challenge
with their indictment that religion is evil that will require a Christian response saturated
in the character of Christ with humility and integrity leading the way. Postmodernism,

159
On this approach to apologetics see Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 117-32.

160
See Boa and Bowman, Faith has its Reasons, 483-500.
7S
while offering appropriate critiques to modernism, offers its own unique set of challenges
for the church. The defense of the faith will have to look less like theological rationalism
with its syllogistic arguments that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Christianity is
true and right. Apologetics will need to embrace a humble epistemology and a gracious
conversational tone, all the while engaging the intellect, affections, and imagination. This
is best expressed in a Pentecostal approach as Spirit empowered speech.
161
The details
of this Pentecostal approach will be offered in the next chapter.





























161
This phrase comes from the work of Tony Richie who offers Pentecostal testimony as a way of
doing interreligious dialogue. He sees the dialogical interchange as being pneumatically inspired. Tony
Richie, Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue (Lexington, KY: Emeth
Press, 2011), 174-175.
74







Chapter Three:

Spirit Empowered Speech:
Toward a Pentecostal Apologetical Method




























7S
Introduction

In chapter two, I explored the cultural backdrop that sets the contemporary stage
for doing apologetics; looked at the most popular current methods in apologetics and
noted their weaknesses to address the challenges facing the Christian faith; and offered a
Pentecostal way of being that begins to break ground for the building of an apologetic
method that meets the current cultural milieu. Before unpacking a Pentecostal
apologetical method, some methodological considerations from the broader Christian
tradition will prove helpful. This will serve to help integrate into the Pentecostal approach
an expansive Christian view, thus avoiding obscurantism or the charge of elitismas if
Pentecostals were the only ones who could do apologetics fully or rightly. The Spirit is at
work in the church universal and as such there is much to be found outside the particular
expression of Christianity that is Pentecostalism. Furthermore, apologists have begun to
think and write about how to respond to the contemporary and unique challenges
presented by the postmodern, post-Christian context. Their insights will only serve to
strengthen the Pentecostal method. Yet, it is my conviction that Pentecostals have
implicit within their spirituality a peculiar practice that will aid in the doing of
apologetics unlike other Christian traditionstestimony. Thus, I will incorporate the
insights of the various postmodern apologetics (also called dialogical or ambassadorial
apologetics), but I will also seek to go beyond them to include a distinct Pentecostal
contribution. As such, this chapter will be structured as follows: first, an exploration of
the dialogical/ambassadorial method and the relevant insights for a Pentecostal approach
to doing apologetics; second, a brief review of how the Pentecostal way of being sets up
76
the apologetic task; and finally, a look to how the Pentecostal practice of testimony can
serve as an apologetic method.

Dialogical/Ambassadorial Apologetics

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul admonishes us that we are Christs
ambassadors, as though God is making his appeal through us (2 Cor 5.20). The
ambassadorial approach is the method that Paul commends to us for sharing the message
of hope and reconciliation found in Christ. Christians do indeed have the best offer of
hope that makes sense of the world, but how is it that Christians should communicate this
message given the postmodern climate and New Atheist challenges? Greg Koukl
remarks that the apologetic method should look a lot more like diplomacy than D-Day.
162

Picking up on Pauls language in 2 Corinthians, Koukl has developed a method of
apologetics that is less combative and more personal. He explains that an ambassador has
three essential characteristics that make the message more effective: character,
knowledge and wisdom.
163
He is not the first to explore an apologetic that is effective in
current culture. David Clark, in similar fashion to Koukl, puts forth what he calls three
conceptual commitments of a postmodern evangelical apologetic:
164
(1) humility; (2)
truth, beauty and goodness; and (3) defense. The symmetry of both Clark and Koukl is
readily apparent and gives an excellent starting point from which to create a postmodern
apologetic. Moreover, the insights provided by these two apologists are necessary

162
Gregory Koukl, Tactics: a Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 19.

163
This is the premise of Koukls ministry, Stand to Reason (str.org) and the methodology he
elucidates in his book Tactics.

164
David K. Clark, Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? in Alister E. McGrath & Evangelical
Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, ed. Sung Wook Chung, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003)
325-6.
77
features of a Pentecostal apologetic method. Therefore a look at each characteristic in
detail is in order.

Character

Character is the foundation of what it means to be an ambassador for Christ. We
see this in Peters imperative to defend the faith, But in your hearts revere Christ as
Lord. Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to the reason for the
hope that you have (1 Pet. 3.15 NIV). Prior to our answerthe defense
165
we are to
have Christ as Lord revered in our hearts. This entails much more than mere intellectual
acknowledgement or assent to a true proposition. There is integrity of relationship
required. Our character must match up to the assent that Christ is Lord, indeed he is Lord
of me. Kenneson observes that in a postmodern world, where the idea of truth as
correspondence is incoherent, people will only know the truth of Christs lordship if we
live in such a way that our lives are incomprehensible apart from this.
166
Although
Kenneson and I would disagree on the value of the correspondence theory of truth, we
would surely agree that our statements are only perceived as true by the prevailing culture
to the extent that they correspond to our lives. This is what we mean by integrityour
message and lives are one and the same.
Clark also points out the importance of intellectual humilitywe are to recognize
the fallibility of human reasoning, without abandoning the enterprise of reason altogether.
He states, Being humble intellectually requires retaining an open spirit of correction.

165
The Greek word that Peter uses in this verse is apologia, from which comes the English word,
apologetic. It means a defense, or a reason for doing or believing something and often carried with it
legal connotations (to offer a legal defense) [Alister McGrath, Evangelical Apologetics, Bibliotheca
Sacra 155, no. 617 (Jan 1998), 5].

166
Kenneson, Theres no Such Thing as Objective Truth, and its a Good Thing Too, 169.
78
Being honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to
reaching all conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs and seeking to
override or reduce those biases.
167
Pretense and pride have no place in the character of
an ambassador, least of which one who serves Christ. A sure way to lose an opportunity
for diplomacy and degenerate a discussion into combat is through pride and pretense.
These characteristics (pride and pretense) are clearly lost on a world questioning absolute
knowledge claims. Therefore integrity and humility (among many other characterizes
noted in Scripture, especially the fruit of the Spirit) are the marks of an ambassador. As
we have seen, then, character (being) is the first mark of an ambassadorial approach to
apologetics.

Knowledge

Knowledge is the second mark of our diplomatic trajectory. While this is often
placed as the first and most important element in apologetics, I will make clear that it is
vital only in combination with the other two: character and wisdom. Knowledge is the
preliminary and necessary work of getting to know the material. The importance of study
is the foundation of knowledge. A multitude of books have been written to encourage the
development of the Christian mind,
168
so here I will make only a few brief points.

167
Clark, Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? 329

168
See, Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? (Ann Arbor, MI:
Regent College Publishing, 2005); Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: an
Introduction to Logical Thinking(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1990); Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat
Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994);
Alister McGrath, The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010); J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate
the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007); J.P. Moreland, Love Your God
with All Your Mind: the Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997);
Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1995); John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 2011); James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling (Downers Grove,
79
The knowledge component is made up of studying the materials, which includes
the objections and their responses. Gaining knowledge, then, takes seriously Peters
second part of his imperative to Always be prepared (1 Pet. 3.15b) Preparation takes
discipline and commitment, and a bit of an intellectual mindset. Koukl is careful to point
out that as apologists we do not have to know everything, but we are not relieved of
doing our homework. The tools of reason and logic form the basis of all persuasive
language. The proper use of the tools, however, does not always come naturally and often
requires training. This training is the development of knowledge. The intellectual side of
apologetics is not virtueless as it might seem. James Sire and Jay Wood have created
lists of intellectual virtues
169
that should lend clarity to the intellectual enterprise:
Acquisition Virtues: Passion for the Truth
Inquisitiveness
Teachable
Persistence
Humility

Maintenance Virtues: Passion for Consistency
Perseverance
Courage
Constancy
Tenacity
Patience
Humility

IL: IVP Books, 2000); John R.W. Stott, Your Mind Matters: the Place of the Mind in the Christian Life,
2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006); James Emery White, A Mind For God (Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Books, 2006); Clifford Williams, The Life of the Mind: a Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2002).

169
Sire, A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics, 94-5; and W. Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming
Intellectually Virtuous (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1998), 34-40. What follows is from Sires
summarization with my own slight modification from Woods text. Linda Zagzebski has done much work
in the are of virtue epistemology and a few of her titles must be mentioned as points of further exploration:
Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, ed. Michael DePaul and Linda Zagzebski
(New York, Oxford University Press, 2003); Virtue Epistemology: Essays on Epistemic Virtue and
Responsibility, ed. Abrol Fairweather and Linda Zagzebski (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001);
and Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) [Terry Cross pointed me in the direction of Zabzebskis
work].
8u

Application Virtues: Passion for Holiness
Love for God and his holiness
Fortitude
Integrity
Humility

Communication Virtues: Compassion for Others
Compassion
Patience
Articulation
Clarity
Humility

Two observations are important; first, the virtues shown here make clear that knowledge
is more than mere gathering and storing of information but has symbiotic connection to
the other two elements of our model, character and wisdom. Second, humility is the
binding motif of the whole paradigm. In short, knowledge is the application of these
virtues to the study of apologeticsarguments, reason, logic, defeaters, etc.
One more point is necessary under the rubric of knowledge. Knowledge values
truth and proposition but it also, as Clark rightly asserts, appreciates beauty and goodness
in equal proportion. As Clark argues, We cant live humane lives if all we have is large
blocks of intellectual truth.
170
His point is that people today are not simply walking
minds looking for rational, deductive arguments to persuade us from one belief to
another. Rather, as many have pointed out, humans are attuned to secondary qualities
things that stimulate our senses, such as color, smell, tasteand value normative
properties, of which only one is intellect, the other two being ethics and beauty.
171
For
knowledge and our apologetics to be holistic, it will need to embrace the whole mind
including, that which is attuned to beauty. This means that the arts should take on a

170
Clark, Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? 325-6.

171
Moreland, Kingdom Triangle.
81
completely new perspective for the apologist. Apologetics would be the better if more
exploration of the application of arts was attempted, and this could prove to be a broad
bridge to the current culture, which is so enamored with art and symbol.
172


Wisdom

Some people think apologetics involves the attempt to provide deductively
certain and universally compelling rationalist argumentation on behalf of
the Christian faithThose who place their bets on this kind of apologetic
have missed the memo on the demise of modernism, however. And fail to
understand contemporary culture.
173


Wisdom is the artful method/approach to apologetics and, according to David Clark and
my own contention, apologetics, classically understood, does not work. What practical
method, then, is one to take? Our previous two points, character and knowledge, seemed
to fit quite well with a rationalist (perhaps even evidentialist) approach, which is what
Clark and I are arguing against primarily. How then does this last element, wisdom,
change the game, as it were? The method that I propose here is not in total disagreement
from what others that have espoused; rather it is a suggestion of how we apply those
methods
174
and how Pentecostals contribute something unique to the task of apologetics.
In his work of the same title, Clark calls this method Dialogical Apologetics and
emphasizes its person-centered approach. Before we enumerate the practical functioning,


172
Craig J. Hazens novel, Five Sacred Crossings (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008),
is an attempt to cross the gap between apologetics and fiction writing. Also, I will explore this topic more
in the fourth chapter.

173
Clark, Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? 312.

174
Two superb works of the different approaches to apologetic method, Five Views On
Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000); and Faith Has Its Reasons:
Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2006). To be
clear, any of the popular methods of apologetics will work with this tactical approach and perhaps all are
necessary at some point. That is to say, I think that each approach can make a positive impact in the right
setting; in other words, the Pentecostal method promoted here is not the end-all, be-all of apologetic
methodology.
82
a word is in order about the foundational assumptions. These assumptions are key to the
Pentecostal approach since it builds on the foundation set by dialogical/ambassadorial
apologetics, as particularly set out by Clark and Koukl.

Role of the Holy Spirit

These working assumptions are those that every apologist must bear in mind
during the endeavor to defend the faith. First, we must remember the role and place of the
Holy Spirit. If we take the metaphor of a harvest, one Jesus and Paul both use, we
remember that not all actually collect the harvest but some plant seeds while others water
(cf. Matt 9.37,8; 1 Cor 3.5-9). However, it is God who causes growth. God, by way of the
Holy Spirit, does the work of conversion, even conversion from one belief to another.
This does not in any way denigrate the role of actual conversation where a persuasive
case is made for the Christian view of life. As Clark writes, dialogical apologetics mean
renouncing a fixation with mere results. It is instead a service-oriented apologetic, an
others-focused method, that recognizes other valueshonest dialogue and genuine
relationshipfor their own sake.
175
Empowerment to value the other and build honest
and genuine relationships comes from the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is necessary precisely because of the noetic effects
of the fall. As Plantinga has observed, Our knowledge of God and his glory is muffled
and impaired; it has been replaced (by virtue of sin) by stupidity, dullness, blindness,
inability to perceive God or to perceive him in his handiwork.
176
Plantingas elucidation,


175
David K. Clark, Dialogical Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 102-3.

8S
although developed more, is largely what Paul states of the godless who have suppressed
the truth, engage in futile thinking, and have a depraved mind (see Rom 1.18-32). This
condition has direct impact on the unbelievers acceptance of any rationale for theism and
more precisely, Christianity. Given this fallen noetic structure, the Holy Spirit is required
to break-in and work graciously to restore, as Calvin called it, the sensus divinitatis
(sense of Divine).

Holistic Approach

Anthropology

The second element to the assumption is that humans are not brains-on-a-stick or,
in the words of James K. A. Smith, thinking things or brains-in-a-vat.
177
This was
explored in more depth in chapter two, thus it will only briefly be touched on here. To be
sure, rationality is part of Gods image in the human spirit. [However], humans are
much more than rational, but not less.
178
The method of apologetics endorsed here,
namely Pentecostal, seeks to embrace the whole person; indeed it must, given the
elements of the Pentecostal way of being. Reason and rationality are important to the
method, as are the laws of logic, however, if mere argumentationthe trotting out of
deductive argument after deductive argument, with a few inductive for good measure
were enough, then at least many more New Atheists would be theists after their public
debates. However, as the New Atheists show, persons are made up of more than their
epistemic structure, as vital as that is to their way of life. Kelly James Clark has noted

176
Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2000),
214-5.

177
James K. A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian
Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 61.

178
Clark, Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? 328.
84
this as well: there is no simple, or unidirectional, logic of believingOur believings are
inextricably entwined with our passions, emotions and will.
179
Clark further clarifies
why we are not simply thinking things:
We are, in every case, epistemically situatedhistorically, culturally, socially
Demonstration, therefore, is not simply a matter of trotting out true premises and showing
their relevance to a true conclusionthe process of demonstration proper involves the
psychological elements of attending to and being persuaded by, which are in turn deeply
affected by our will.
180


It is for this reason that dialogical apologetics is person-oriented. Dialogical apologetics
makes a person-oriented stance central to the definition and theory of apologetics. The
unique qualities of individuals, not an abstract theory about how all human beings know,
guides apologetics practice.
181
This is why, in practice, apologetics must be audience-
sensitive.
182
Attention to the audiencebe it the person across the coffee table, or the
auditorium full of college students, or the Sunday school at the local churchwill keep
us from using the hammer of reason
183
to pound our opponents into a solidified, nearly
petrified, position against God.
To carry this thought further, Smith has argued that fundamentally people are
embodied agents of desire or love.
184
A view of the human as primarily rational fails
to honor the complexity and richness of human persons and essentially reduces us and


179
Kelly James Clark, A Reformed Epistemologists Response (To Craig, Classical
Apologetics) in Five Views On Apologetics, ed. Steven B Cowan, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
Company, 2000) 84, 85.

180
Ibid.

181
Clark, Dialogical Apologetics, 110.

182
Ibid, 112.

183
This idea comes from Kelly James Clark, A Reformed Epistemologists Response (To
Craigs, Classical Apologetics), 89.

184
James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation,
Cultural Liturgies, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009),47.
8S
our core identities to something less than they should be.
185
The apologetic method must
accommodate to what people really are in essence. As has been noted, this does not
discount the importance of offering reasons and rationale for the Christian view of life.
Rather, it pushes the way apologetics is done to a more comprehensive levelthat of
engaging the whole person. Akin to this is the view that at bottom Christianity is about an
encounter with a living God, not propositions and syllogisms. While propositions and
syllogisms may (and in my view do) help facilitate knowledge of God, they are not the
primary means of knowing God. If Smiths argument is true, then Pentecostal apologetics
(and any apologetic method) will have to approach human persons as loving and desiring
beings. This line of thinking has implications for epistemology that need further
exploration.

Epistemology

Building on the proposal by Smiththat humans are primarily desiring beings,
that is their controlling center is not the rational mind but the affections, dispositions,
desires, and loverequires a consideration of how this impacts epistemology. Were it the
case that humans were only rational beings, then epistemology in relation to apologetics
would be a matter of offering valid and true syllogisms. However, given that people are
more than rational (but not less), does Christian epistemology make room for this view of
the human? As I showed in chapter two, the Pentecostal view indeed does make room for
this kind of knowledge. Pentecostals are not alone in this either. Christian philosopher,
Gary DeWeese, has written about the Christian applications of knowledge by


185
Ibid., 46.
86
acquaintancethe view in epistemology that some knowledge is gained by relation.
186

This knowledge, while surely containing propositions, is not primarily propositional. He
uses the example of knowing a girl named Jane. While entailing propositions it is
doubtful that this knowledge (of Jane) can be reduced to propositions, it has a different
feel than knowing that the new girl is named Jane.
187
This point is very much what
William Lane Craig holds when he proposes a difference between knowing Christianity
to be true and showing it to be true.
188
Knowledge of God, which apologeticsin part
seeks to establish, is primarily established by encounter with the Holy Spirit. In this way,
the human persons affections, desires, and dispositions are engaged in a way that
propositions are not structured to do. As Craig states, For the believer, God is not the
conclusion of a syllogism; he is the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelling
within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He [or she] knows
because of the self-authenticating witness of Gods Spirit who lives within him [or
her].
189
From a Pentecostal view of apologetics, this encounter can be facilitated through
the sharing of testimonythe telling of ones encounter with the living God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob (I expound this more below under the section on testimony). Given these
considerations, our epistemology takes a more open view of what it means to know and
how that knowledge is communicated, which need not be through the modernistic model
of rationalism.

186
Garrett J. DeWeese, Doing Philosophy as a Christian, Christian Worldview Integration Series
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 152.

187
Ibid.

188
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3
rd
ed. (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2008), 43-52.

189
Ibid., 46.
87
The postmodern critique of modernism is appropriate to remember here. Reason
is not neutral. It does not stand dispassionately, without prejudice (prejudgment),
overlooking the evidence; it is not bias-free (at least on matter of fundamental human
concern).
190
Reason and argumentation are important elements but certainly not the only
elements we have in apologeticsothers include honest relationship and open dialogue
and perhaps not the most important. If we make a friend but lose the argument we still
have an opportunity for more dialogue; if, however, we win the argument but lose a
friend we have lost the opportunity for so much more. A commitment to defend the faith
is not a promise to argue whatever, however, whenever, and with whomever. It is a
commitment to be, to the highest degree possible, what God wants his servants to be
intellectually, relationally, and spiritually.
191
Thus, apologetics is a person-to-person
encounter that God through the Holy Spirit uses to engage the core of the person.

The Dialogical/Ambassadorial Method

Given the three underlying considerationsthe role of the Holy Spirit, the noetic
effects of sin, and the holistic personwhat would dialogical apologetics look like in
practice. Greg Koukl proposes a dialogue that is guided by questionsa Socratic method,
as it were. Koukl points out three goals he has when asking questions: (1) gain
information, (2) reverse burden of proof, and (3) exploit weakness.
192
Asking with
respect and gentleness assures our conversation partners that they are not being
interrogated. A word of clarification is necessary. This is not friendship evangelism


190
Kelly James Clark, Closing Remarks, in Five Views On Apologetics, ed. Steven B Cowan,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000) 365.

191
Clark, Dialogical Apologetics, 234. (Emphasis original)

192
Koukl, Tactics, 47-9.
88
where we befriend only with the agenda to convert. Dialogical apologetics flows out of
natural encounters and true friendship. Questions by nature are interactive, inviting
others to participate in dialogue. They are also neutral, no preaching is involved.
193

The first goal Koukl gives allows the other person to clarify what he or she means
by what they have said. When an assertion or challenge to Christianity is made simply
asking, What do you mean by that? or some derivative of this question give the other a
chance to clarify. This will ensure that, in line with the intellectual virtues, we give full
audience to the claim. A second question, still in support of the first goal, is to ask, How
did you come to that conclusion? After finding out what someone thinks, then it
appropriate to find out why he or she thinks this way. These two pieces of information are
most vital when answering an objection to any view. Responding to a question with a
question can ensure that when we respond our answer gets to the issue.
194
Questions that
seek to gain information allow for clarification and precision in the conversation.
To reverse the burden of proof does not require a particular question on its own.
Rather by requesting opponents to support their claim, we have made sure the burden of
proof remains on the appropriate side. As Koukl points out, in conversations we must
reject the impulse to counter every assertion someone manufactures.
195
Instead of
making assertions for our view, we need to ask a carefully placed question to shift the
burden back on the one making the claim. In a formal debate format, the side that asserts
the proposition is responsible to shoulder the burden to prove it. Although, conversations


193
Koukl, Tactics: Applying Apologetics to Everyday Life, in To Everyone an Answer, eds.
Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 49.

194
Sire, A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics, 60.

195
Koukl, Tactics, 51.
89
are not formal debates (nor should they be!), it is fair to request the one making the claim
shoulder the burden of proof. This serves as a tactical move more than an overt
conversation piece.
The last goal to exploit weakness is used to expose faulty thinking, not embarrass
or denigrate our conversation partner. When working toward this goal the first element of
our method becomes vital: character. Our character will speak loudest when we are
challenging another persons views. As Sire observes, a casual attitude and tone are a
great advantage in reaching peoples hearts and minds;
196
this is certainly right when
challenging their views.
A case study from one of Koukls examples should prove helpful in gaining an
understanding of the method he espouses here. The conversation begins when, at the
counter of a store, Koukl asks the cashier a question about her necklace:

Koukl: Does that star have religious significance, or is it just jewelry?
[He notes that this is a form of What do you mean by that?]

Cashier: Yes, it has religious significance. The five points stand for earth, wind, fire,
water, and spirit. Im a pagan.

Koukl: So youre a Wiccan?

Cashier nodding: Yes, Its an Earth religion, like the Native Americans. We respect all
life.

Koukl: If you respect all life, then I suppose youre pro-life on the abortion issue.

Cashier: No, actually Im not. Im pro-choice.

Koukl: Isnt that an unusual position for someone in Wicca to take, I mean, since youre
committed to respecting all life?

Cashier: Youre right. It is oddI know I could never do that. I mean, I could never kill
a baby. I wouldnt do anything to hurt anyone else because I might come back on me.

Koukl: Well, maybe you wouldnt do anything to hurt a baby, but other people would.
Shouldnt we do something to stop them from killing babies?


196
Sire, A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics, 63.
9u

Cashier: I think women should have a choice.

Koukl: Do you mean women should have the choice to kill their own babies?

Cashier: WellI think all things should be taken into consideration on this question.

Koukl: Okay, tell me: What kind of considerations would make it all right to kill a baby?

Cashier: Incest.

Koukl: Hmm. Let me see if I understand. Lets just say I had a two-year-old child
standing next to me who had been conceived as a result of incest. On your view, it
seems, I should have the liberty to kill her. Is that right?

Cashier: Id have mixed feelings about that.
197


Beginning with a question opened up an opportunity for dialogue in a non-threatening
environment. Dialogical apologetics does just this, it seeks humbly to ask questions that
clarify the conversation and direct it toward positive interchange. Without overtly telling
the cashier that her position was inconsistent, Koukl was able to expose and challenge her
thinking with a well-put question backed by his use of reason and logic.
Dialogical apologetics, then, attempts to be both rational and personal. It is a rational
enterprise in that it seek to build a reasoned, probabilistic, holistic, cumulative case for
Christianity. But it is personal in that it recognizes at the same time the roadblocks to
faith thrown up by the audiences culture, psychology, attitudes, intellect, morality, ad
infinitum.
198


Pentecostal Worldview/Way of Being

The Pentecostal way of doing apologetics builds on the foundation set by the
dialogical/ambassadorial approach explained above. However, more needs to be said
about the Pentecostal worldview that enables a distinctive approach to apologetics. In his
work on Christian apologetics, Cornelius Van Til points out that the point of contact
where the rubber meets the road in terms of actually defending the faithfor

197
Koukl, Tactics, 20-3. I have modified the format and condensed the conversation some.

198
Clark, Dialogical Apologetics, 113-4.
91
apologetics is broadly determined by two things: theology and anthropology.
199
From the
first element, how we conceive of God, revelation, salvation, and so forth, will determine
how we approach the task of defending the faith. In this way, our systematic theology
(both embedded and deliberative) bears major influence on how we approach the task of
defending the faith. This is true whether we have thought through the theological
implications for apologetics or not. In the second element, how we view what it means to
be human will be determinative for which approach we take in the task of apologetics.
Having looked at some of the current methods of apologetics it is now important to turn
to an exploration of these two elements (theology and anthropology) from a Pentecostal
perspective as a set up for the final section on the actual Pentecostal method.
In the exploration of a Pentecostal theology it is important to note that for
Pentecostals theology is not so much propositionaldoctrines, dogmas, and theoria
(although it does contain these elements), but theology is caught up with spirituality; a
point Steve Land makes in his landmark book on Pentecostal spirituality.
200
And as Cross
has noted, Pentecostal theology can never be merely a set of propositions on paper; it is
a reflection of a life lived before God in the power of the Spirit. Our spirituality informs
our theology.
201
Land defines spirituality as the integration of beliefs and practices in


199
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith Fourth Edition, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P&R Pub., 2008), 95; 103.
200
I agree with Terry Cross that theology is more than spirituality and hence have not equated
theology and spirituality, even if there is a symbiotic relationship from which it can be hard to assign strict
boundaries. Cross states, I would argue that spirituality does not equal theology. There is more to the
theological task than reflection on the spiritual experiences with God that one might have. These
experiences open the door to lead me further into a knowledge of this God with whom we have to do
(Terry L. Cross, Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology? An Essay on Theological Method in a
Postmodern World, Paper presented to the Theology Interest Group, 30
th
Annual Meeting of the Society
for Pentecostal Studies [2001], 16).

201
Terry L. Cross, A Proposal to Break the Ice: What Can Pentecostal Theology Offer
Evangelical Theology? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (2002), 72.
92
the affections which are themselves evoked and expressed by those beliefs and
practices.
202
More recently, Peter Neumann has assigned four elements that denote
Pentecostal spirituality, (1) experiential, (2) biblical/revelational, (3) holistic, and (4)
missional/pragmatic.
203
An appropriate understanding of Pentecostal theology, then, is
as Jamie Smith puts it, the nexus of practices that make up pentecostal spirituality
(which might be described as an implicit theology or perhaps even a folk
theology).
204
This, however, should not lead one to think that for Pentecostals theology
is purely existential and emotive. Rather, as Douglas Jacobsen has pointed out, There is
no question that spiritual affections are hugely important within pentecostalism, but that
emphasis on experiential faith does not require a concomitant diminution of the intellect
or a rejection of theology.
205
He goes further to point out that without theology,
Pentecostalism would be non-existent because it is not the peculiarity of the Pentecostal
experience that sets Pentecostals apart but how those experiences are reflected on
theologically. Behind this theological reflection lies what Smith calls prephilosophical
assumptions that constitute this constellation of pentecostal commitments, or more
simply, a Pentecostal worldview. This worldview needs to be unpack to set the stage for


202
Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, 13

203
Peter D. Neumann, Spirituality, in Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, ed. Adam Stewart
(Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012), 196.

204
James K.A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 26. Smith explains why he prefers pentecostal (with a
lower case p) versus Pentecostal: By pentecostal I am referring not to a classical or denominational
definitionThus I use the term in an older sense, which now would include charismatic traditionsI use
the convention of small-p pentecostalism to refer to the broader renewal of Pentecostal/charismatic
traditions (James K.A. Smith, Is The Universe Open For Surprise? Pentecostal Ontology and the Spirit of
Naturalism, Zygon 43, no. 4 [December 2008], 893n1).

205
Douglas Jacobson, Reader in Pentecostal Theology, 5; quoted in Smith, Thinking in Tongues,
25-6n13.
9S
the individual elements of theology and anthropology and their import for a Pentecostal
apologetic method.

Worldview

To say that Pentecostals have a worldview requires some explanation of what is
meant by worldview.
206
After unpacking the concept worldview, I will expound the
elements of a Pentecostal worldview that provide the basis for a holistic anthropology,
epistemology, and unique way of doing theology. James Olthuis has offered a very
helpful explanation of worldview in his article On Worldviews and one that resonates
well with Pentecostalism.
207
Succinctly, Olthuis introduces worldview as the framework
of fundamental considerations which give context, direction, and meaning to our
lives.
208
This framework comes in the form of answers to the big questions (Where
did I come from? What is lifes meaning? How do I define right from wrong and what
happens to me when I die?
209
) even if these answers are only partial or implicit.
Unpacking his succinct statement, Olthuis defines a worldview thusly:


206
This section is intentionally brief. For more in-depth expositions of worldview see David K.
Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

207
James H. Olthuis, On Worldviews, in Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science (New
York, NY: University Press of America, 1989), 26, PDF online.
http://groups.apu.edu/theophil/Culp/Phil496%20Readings/Olthuis%20WV.pdf. Jamie Smith, a Pentecostal
philosopher, interacts with Olthuis in Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural
Formation, Cultural Liturgies Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 23-4; and Thinking in
Tongues, 27. In the latter, particularly, Smith shows how Olthuiss conceptions fit well in the Pentecostal
milieu.

208
Olthuis, On Worldviews, 26.

209
Ravi Zacharias characterizes a worldview as the answers to these major questions, which
everyone faces. Julia Duin, Christian Worldview, The Washington Times 3 July 2003,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/3/20030703-114701-1540r/?page=all. Olthuis offers these
as the pressing questions that form ones worldview: Who am I? Where are I going? Whats it all about?
Is there a god? How can I live and die happily? Olthuis, On Worldviews, 26.
94
A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental
beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it.
This vision need not be fully articulated: it may be so internalized that it
goes largely unquestioned; it may not be explicitly developed into a
systematic conception of life; it may not be theoretically deepened into a
philosophy; it may not even be codified into a creedal form; it may be
greatly refined through cultural-historical development. Nevertheless, this
vision is a channel for the ultimate beliefs which give direction and
meaning to life. It is the integrative and interpretative framework by which
order and disorder are judged; it is the standard by which reality is
managed and pursued; it is the set of hinges on which all our everyday
thinking and doing turns.
210


This conception is perhaps one of the best for construing how worldview (vision of life)
functions for Pentecostals. Pentecostals are oriented by a particular take on the world,
which includes answers to the big questions, but often these answers and this vision
are not articulated, but remain implicit. This take then is better understood as a way of
being. Steve Land, et aland from a philosophical view Jamie Smithhas done great
work to make explicit the implicit and tacit take that Pentecostal have on being in the
world. So, Smith writes, to speak of worldview is to speak about our most
fundamental orientation to the world; a framework that operates even prior to thought; a
passional orientation of our imagination that filters and explains our experience of the
world; and a pentecostal worldview is first embedded in a constellation of spiritual
practices that carry within them an implicit understanding.
211
What distinct features of
this fundamental orientation does Pentecostalism exhibit?
212



210
Olthuis, On Worldviews, 29.

211
Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 29, 30-1.

212
Smiths disclaimer is important to mention here, as he does, before the exposition of a
Pentecostal worldview. By a pentecostal worldview I dont mean to suggest that pentecostalism has its
own catalogue of propositional truths sitting on a shelf that deductively tell us how to think differently
about the world. Rather I mean that embedded in the embodied practices and spirituality of pentecostalism
9S
As mentioned in chapter one, Smith has five elements of a distinctly pentecostal
worldview.
213
First is a position of radical openness to God.
214
Second, Pentecostals
have an enchanted theology of creation and culture. Third, there is a nondualistic
affirmation of embodiment and materiality (what I call holistic anthropology). Fourth,
Pentecostals hold to an affective, narrative epistemology. Finally, fifth, there is an
eschatological orientation to mission and justice in Pentecostalism. I will mention and
briefly unpack three (1, 2, and 5) and explain more fully two of these elements (3 and 4)
in the following sections.
The first distinctive, it seems to me, is the distinctive of Pentecostal
spirituality/theology that makes the remaining possible, namely, radical openness to
God.
215
For Pentecostals, God is dynamically present and active in the world. The system
of creation is not closed as it is in naturalism or in some construals of Christian theism,

are elements of a latent but distinctive understanding of the world, an affective take on the world that
constitutes more of a social imaginary than a cognitive framework (Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 31).

213
Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 32-3.

214
Smith unpacks this view in more detail and in dialogue with science in Is The Universe Open
For Surprise? Pentecostal Ontology and the Spirit of Naturalism, 888-93. He writes of a more robust
Pentecostal view that sees the world not as an autonomous order that God breaks into, but rather as a world
already caught up in the Spirit. Embedded in a pentecostal social imaginary is an understanding of the
God-world relation that eschews the discretion model and refuses to grant nature the autonomy of a closed
system. The Spirit is always already present at and in creation. The Spirits presence is not a postlapsarian
or soteriological visiting of a creation that is otherwise without God. The Spirit is always already
dynamically active in the cosmos (world, nature). God does not have to enter nature as a visitor and alien;
God is always already present in the world. Thus is creation primed for the Spirits action (891).

215
This observation is not mine alone. Pentecostals confess a radical openness to the invasion and
intervention of Gods Spirit in our daily lives, says Cross. And he further notes, I am not suggesting that
other Christians do not also approach God with such radical openness, but rather that as a central feature of
our communities of faith, Pentecostals seem to wear this confession as if it were our creed (Terry L. Cross,
The Divine-Human Encounter: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of Experience, Pneuma: The Journal of
the Society for Pentecostal Studies 31 [2009], 6, 6n5). See also his Answering the Call in the Spirit:
Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of Vocation, Work, and Life (Cleveland, TN: Lee University Press,
2007): Pentecostals possess a radical openness to Gods presence and power. Because we have
encountered Gods presence in the Spirit, we have been transformed (p.14). In this vein, I am suggesting
that it is not the five-fold gospel (a la K. Archer or J.C. Thomas) or Spirit baptism (a la F. Macchia) that is
the distinctive of Pentecostals. Rather, it is position of radical openness (and even expectation) of Gods
dynamic in breaking.
96
such as cessationinst strands. Rather, in the Pentecostal view, God is breaking into the
world to act and do that which he has not done yet. Pentecostals are open to God doing
new or different things in the world. The world is an open system where God can, and
does, interrupt in surprising waysthis is not simply a theoretical affirmation of
Pentecostals but an expectation. While abuses and deviations from classical orthodoxy
have occurred, this openness is not a denial of the revelation given in Scripture or a
license to go beyond Scripture. As Neumann points out, Pentecostals are still committed
to biblical/revelational spirituality.
The second aspect naturally flows from the firstan enchanted theology of
creation and culture. If God is dynamically active in the world through the ministry of the
Spirit, as Pentecostals take him to be, then it follows that creation and culture become
places of that activity and are thus enchanted. In this way, Smith takes culture to be
the work of human making that elucidates the potentialities folded into creation, and
as such it is part of creation.
216
Herein is an aspect that needs more elucidation by
Pentecostal scholars, a point I make in the final chapter.
The final element of Smiths pentecostal worldview is an eschatological
orientation. This is not reserved to Smith alone; he builds off of the work done by Land
on this point. Pentecostal spirituality and theology aims at the last days, that is, it is
moving in a direction that is guided by reflection on what it means to have the Spirit
present with us now as inaugural of the Kingdom of God. Part of what this orientation
means is an impetus to mission. Thus, as Smith points out, endemic to a pentecostal
worldview is an eschatology that engenders a commitment both to mission and to

216
Ibid., 39n61.
97
ministries of empowerment and social justice.
217
This is true even if it is not always
explicitly practiced by Pentecostals.
The final two elements of the worldview will receive a larger treatment as they
pertain more particularly to the apologetic endeavor.

Holistic Anthropology

In the previous chapter I explored the dualistic view that the contemporary culture
takes on facts and values. I would like to point to the further divide that a dualistic
anthropology has given the current culture also, that is the current experience versus
knowledge dividenamely, that knowledge does not come from experience, or at least
the kind of knowledge on which one can build a stable structure. Greg West, who runs a
widely known, accessible, and popular level apologetics website, recently responded to a
popular rejoinder to apologetics.
218
His response exhibits very well the popular-level
divide that is propagated in rationalistic apologetics. The charge is this: that one does not
need apologetics since what is really needed is to experience Jesus (as he frames it, We
dont need apologetics; we just need to experience Jesus). Wests response is to affirm
the importance of experiencing Jesus, however, knowledge of Jesus that is based only on


217
Ibid., 45.

218
Gregs site is thepoachedegg.net and it is a mixture of scholarly works from well-known and
qualified philosopher-apologists and popular-level blog type engagements with common apologetic issues.
I include him here not because he is a well-known scholar and established in the field of apologetics, but
because I think he shows the common understanding in lower level philosophical anthropology (that is,
those who are engaged in learning apologetics through certificate programs, like Greg, or on their own
apart from or with very little oversight and direction by trained theologians and philosophers. This lack of
direction can and does create unbalance given that many topics, such as philosophical or theological
anthropology, are not apart of the learning process.). His is simply a very recent example of a trend among
popular apologetics (a group I love and encourage, see especially my final chapter of this thesis) that has
come down from rationalistic approaches to apologetics by professional philosophers and theologians (thus,
this imbalance is not given to lay-level engagement alone; it is simply more likely).

98
experience is like building ones house on sand. He writes, if youre basing your faith on
experience alone to the exclusion of reason and knowledge, then youre building your
house not on solid rock, but on sandand when the rains come down, the streams rise,
and the winds blow and beat against your house it will fall with a mighty crash.
219
The
implication of his point, and one that he is not alone in making, is that experience is not a
solid foundation for knowing.
220
Thus, the incipient conclusion describes the human as
radically dualistic. On the one hand, humans have knowledge through reason and the
intellectthe kind that leads to sure foundations for other enterprises. On the other hand,
humans have experienceseven deeply profound, life-transforming encounters with the
living God (at least according to Christians). However, only the first epistemological
construct (rationalism) gives the human solid foundation to build on. This is the
presumption that a Pentecostal holistic anthropology critiquesthe dualistic divide of the
human, the epistemological implications of which are explore more in the next section.
For the Pentecostal real knowledge comes from the latter experience described above.
From it come not propositional statements but an affective transformation and formation
that can order who a person is on the deepest levels. To be clear, a holistic anthropology
does not negate one factor (reason/intellect) in favor of another (experience), but rather
moves toward an integrated human experience. In this view, there is equal importance to
both experience and intellect and both avenues provide real and certain knowledge.
221


219
Greg West, We dont need apologetics; we just need to experience Jesus (blog), 30
November 2012, http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2012/11/we-dont-need-apologetics-we-
just-need-to-experience-jesus.html accessed: 30 November 2012.

220
It is possible that West would allow that it takes both reason/knowledge and experience to form
a solid foundation.

221
I am using certain here not in the logical, rational, or epistemic sense of certainty but in the
psychological sense. I realize that there is very little that we know that carries with it logical or epistemic
99
Pentecostals, therefore, are open and accepting to knowing that is occasioned by
materialistic existence. This is to say, it is possible to know something through the
material of existence not just through the immaterial of rationality.
Moving away from the Platonic ideal of escape from the material body,
Pentecostals accept embodiment as a God-given grace.
222
It was in the creation account
of Genesis that God created humans as physical embodied beings and called that good
(Gen 1.31). Moreover, Pentecostals, as those whose theology has an eschatological
orientation, look forward to the day when the body will be resurrected and enjoy life
everlasting in Gods kingdom. This resurrection, while clearly something different from
what is known in the current existence, cannot be but an affirmation of embodiment
God could have given, in the fullness of his kingdom, a spiritual existence, but he choose
embodiment as the expression of existence. Furthermore, Christs own somatic existence
in the incarnation is an affirmation of human embodiment. By the very fact that the
second person of the Trinity came to exist among humans as a human to redeem humans
and all this in their fleshthat is, their embodiment. These foundational assumptions
serve to shore up a theological anthropology that takes seriously more than just the
mind/soul element of what it means to be human. Therefore, emotions and ecstatic

certaintythe state of knowing without the possibility of doubt (an example is mathematical axioms).
However, psychological certainty, or the state of being convinced something is true even if it is not
indubitablealthough it could be incorrigibleis the kind of certainty that normal humans experience. It is
this kind of certainty that the inner, self-authenticating experience of the Holy Spirit brings to believers. It
is possible that believers are mistaken about their experience (they are not mistaken that they actually
experienced something) and thus it is not indubitable. For more information on certainty, see Baron Reed,
s.v. Certainty, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford, CA: The
Metaphysics Research Lab, 2009), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/#KinCer.

222
Smith offers this explanation of embodiment: To be embodied means that I reside in a time
and a placethat I am a person with geography and a history that constitute who I am. It means that my
identity is linked with my gender, my race and ethnicity, my desires and passions, my physical gifts and
even my incapabilities (Thinking in Tongues, 60).
1uu
experiences have a vital role in the life of Pentecostals because these relate to their bodily
existence.
The divide between mind and body that elevates the mind to the primary (or only)
faculty of knowing has no place in a holistic anthropology, and therefore is rejected by
Pentecostals.
223
To be sure, this rejection is founded upon the unreflected practice of the
kind of anthropology just described. That is, it is not that Pentecostals have reflected on
the meaning of holistic anthropology and then decided to accept affective epistemology.
Rather, as those who have been encountered in dynamic and radical ways by the living
God, Pentecostals could not deny the pedagogical nature of such encounters that rose
above their rational processing ability. And rather than deny the experience or suppress it
because of a rationalistic view of humanity, Pentecostals embedded the tacit assumptions
which shaped their anthropologythis is the way of Pentecostal theology, although not
the only way.

Epistemology

The broader outlines of epistemology were given in the section on the New
Atheists (in chapter two) so here I want to look at how Pentecostals are alike and differ
from common epistemological conceptions, which follow naturally from their
anthropology. A [epistemological] dominant model, Smith explains, as old as Plato
but rebirthed by Descartes and cultivated throughout modernity, sees human persons as
fundamentally a thinking thing.
224
A Pentecostal epistemology stands in contrast to


223
This is not to be understood as a rejection of substance dualism. There is a substantial
difference between the mind (immaterial) and the body (material) for Pentecostals. However, one is not
better than the other.
224
Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 41.
1u1
Descartes, and thus stands, in some measure, with postmodernism.
225
This disconnect
between Pentecostals and Descartes becomes quite clear when Descartes writes,
I do not now admit anything which is not necessarily true: to speak
accurately, I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind
or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason, which are terms whose
significance was formerly unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing and
really exist; what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks.
226


To be sure, from the Pentecostal perspective, humans are rationalthey are things that
think. However, humans are not thinking things only, which is the way Descartes
characterizes himself. As Smith explains, Because of an emphasis on the role of
experience, and in contrast to rationalistic evangelical theology (which reduces worship
to a didactic sermon, and conceives of our relation to God as primarily intellectual,
yielding only talking heads Christianity), pentecostal spirituality is rooted in affective,
narrative epistemic practice.
227
That is to say that for the Pentecostal knowing is not so
much about rational proposition or logical syllogism; rather there is a primary openness
to avenues of knowing that are beyond intellectualism. Again the qualifier is pertinent:
This incipient epistemology is not antirational, but antirationalist; it is not a critique or
rejection of reason as such but rather a commentary on a particularly reductionistic model
of reason and rationality, a limited, stunted version of what counts as knowledge.
228



225
Smith characterizes Pentecostal epistemology as proto-postmodern. Jackie Johns speaks of
Pentecostalism as paramodern, see his Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview, Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995): 73-96. Johns does not use the term paramodern in his paper, but does in
courses when discussing the relationship of Pentecostalism to postmodernity and the concept in contained
in his essay.

226
Ren Descartes, Meditation II quoted in James Sire, The Universe Next Door, 217.

227
Smith, Thinking in Tongues, 43.

228
Ibid., 53.
1u2
Pushing beyond the bounds of rationalism and intellectualism, which says that the
only kind of knowledge is that which is gained by thought or calculation, Pentecostals
embrace a narrative epistemology that is most clearly expressed in the practice of
testimony (which I will unpack in greater detail below). Endemic to Pentecostal
spirituality is the telling of story or testimony and Smith suggests that this narrative
recounting is a way of communicating more than rational proposition but something
emotional.
229
He quotes Christian Smith approvingly, we not only continue to be
animals who make stories but also animals who are made by our stories.
230
While
carrying certain propositional and rational elements, testimony goes beyond those and
brings with it emotional appeal that impacts and conveys knowledge in more holistic
terms.
231
In this vein, and with Jonathan Edwards, H. Richard Niebuhr considered
emotion to put us into touch with what is reliable, firm, real, enduring in ways that are
inaccessible to conceptual or spectator reason.
232
In this way, narrative epistemology is
an affective epistemologythat is, it is characterized by the affections.


229
Ibid., 65.

230
Christian Smith, Moral, Believing Animals, quoted in ibid., 44.

231
Pentecostals can find commonality with Feminist epistemology and philosophy in this area.
Two very basic introductions to Feminist epistemology are Marianne Janack, s.v. Feminist
Epistemology, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 31 October 2004, http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-
epis/; and Elizabeth Anderson, Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, in The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, 2009),
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/#empiricism. Jamie Smith suggests Lorraine Code,
What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge (Ithica, NY: Cornell University
Press, 2001) [Smith, Thinking in Tongues, xxiii n33]. Terry Cross points to, as a helpful source in this vein,
Sara Ahmed, Differences that Matter: Feminist Theory and Postmodernism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998).

232
H. Richard Niebuhr, Coale Lectures, quoted in Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, 134.
1uS
Steve Land characterizes Christian affections with three loaded terms: objective,
relational, and dispositional.
233
The affections are objective in that they take an object,
namely God. They are relational in that to have God as the object, who is subject, they
require ongoing relationship with him for their proper genesis and ongoing
expression.
234
Indeed, this is the goal or telos of the affections according to Land. Given
this understanding, the Christian affections are not episodic expressions conjured at will
by the believer, but are dependant upon the continuing sustainment by God. What Land
means when he characterizes affections as dispositional (and over against episodic) is,
Affections are abiding dispositions which dispose the person toward God and the
neighbor in way appropriate to their source and goal in Godaffections characterize a
person.
235
The core of a person is an expression of his or her affections, that is, the
affections of a person reveal his or her true self. Pentecostals believe that it is the Spirit
who orders, forms and transforms ones affections and that this is carried out through a
variety of means beyond merely cognitive learning. Story and experience are two ways
that affections are formed and transformed and thus two ways that Pentecostals recognize
that they can knowthey know because an experience has formed them in such a way as
to be self-authenticating.
This latter concept is not relegated to Pentecostals alone. Indeed, William Lane
Craig, eminent Christian apologist and philosopher, points out that it is the experience of
the Holy Spirit that confirms for the believer that God exists.
236
He goes further to say


233
Ibid.

234
Ibid., 135.

235
Ibid., 136.

1u4
that this experience of God can convey multifarious truths to us that are not conditioned
by argumentation or rationality. He finds that this is the position of the premier Christian
philosopher of the 20
th
century Alvin Plantinga and also that of the 18
th
century apologist
Henry Dodwell. There is, then, some affinity between a Pentecostal epistemology and
Reformed epistemology, especially as characterized by Alvin Plantinga. The idea that a
Christian is justified in believing in God without any rational arguments to support her
position, Plantinga has shown is reasonable given the properly basic belief in God from
direct encounter.
237
Therefore, Pentecostals are not alone in thinking that knowledge is
not constrained to mere rationalistic categories and thus a method of apologetic which
seeks to push beyond the constraints of rationalism is well-founded, as this Pentecostal
method seeks to do.

Doing Theology

This final section under the rubric of a Pentecostal worldview seeks to elucidate
the theological method of Pentecostals.
238
The explanation of the methodology will serve
to ground the apologetic method in the already present practices of Pentecostals. It will

236
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 43. Craig does not understand this experience of the
Holy Spirit to be the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism. On the contrary, he takes issue with the
Pentecostal teaching of a second definite experience beyond salvation. The experience is that which Paul
references in his epistle to the Romans (8.14-15) and the ongoing relational experience of the Holy Spirit
within the believer.

237
Plantingas works on warranted Christian belief are especially helpful and there is much
common ground between his Reformed Epistemology and a Pentecostal epistemology (although, Plantinga
does not make these connections). See Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2000).

238
I should note that this treatment is an interaction with the works of leading Pentecostal scholars
but in no way attempts to posit a uniform Pentecostal theology. Conversely, I understand Pentecostal
theology to be under development and contextual, thus I want to unpack what Pentecostal theology looks
like in my own context.
1uS
show that the method I propose flows directly from the inherent ways that Pentecostals
do theology.
239

How we understand what theology is will be determinative for the practice of
theology. Hence, I will consider various definitions of theology from contemporary
Pentecostal thinkers. Steve Land has defined theology as a discerning reflection on the
living reality of God with us.
240
In more discursive terms, Cross has defined Pentecostal
theology thusly: it is fundamentally a second-order reflection on the primary narrative of
God in revelation coordinated with a reflection on the experience of God in our
livesTheology is a critical inquiry and reflection upon the primary truth of the story,
that is not equated with Scripture but is shaped by the language of Scripture.
241
Compare
this to Donald McKims definition: Language or discourse about God. It can be a
scientific, methodological attempt to understand Gods divine revelation.
242
While there
are similarities between the twoLand and Cross are surely positing something about
language and Gods revelationthe convergence in the underlying methodology is
striking. The starting point for Pentecostal theology is encounter with the living God. As
Cross puts it, For Pentecostals, the beginning and end of theological reflection will be
infused with our experience of God through his Spirit.
243
Otherwise characterized as


239
Cross makes a similar connection in his article, A Proposal to Break the Ice. namely that
theological method bears directly on ones approach to the apologetic task. Cross, A Proposal to Break the
Ice, 60.

240
Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, 34.

241
Terry L. Cross, The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the Main Course or Only
the Relish? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000), 36.

242
Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 279-80.

243
Cross, The Rich Feast of Theology, 36.
1u6
Gods revelation, Pentecostals take this revelation to be personal and experiential (more
will be said about the role of experience in Pentecostal theology below). So that, although
the language of Land and Cross is that of academic theologianssuch that this is not
precisely how theology finds expression among non-academic Pentecostals (or the
average person)it does capture in analytical language the heart of what theology
means for Pentecostals. McKims definition is not distant to Pentecostal theology, to be
sure; its lack of experiential tenor, however, makes it less synonymous.
In his presidential address to the Society for Pentecostal Studies, J. Christopher
Thomas offered five aspects that are important to Pentecostal theology: community
(theology flows out of base community), integration (head and heart; ecumenical; and
interdisciplinary), accountability (honest assessment of theology sought from
community), contextual (not acultural), and confessional (a decision to allow the
implications of what we know to be true from the way in which God deals with us to
have a place in the way we approach Scripture, theology, and ministry).
244
Others have
offered concise summaries of Pentecostal theology that illuminate the methodological
character. Hollenweger has noted that a characteristic of Pentecostal theology is its
narrativity.
245
Archer agrees with Hollenweger adding next to narrative, integration (in
the same vein as Thomas).
246
This narrative is constituted by experience, which runs like


244
John Christopher Thomas, Pentecostal Theology in the Twenty-First Century, Presidential
Address at the Society of Pentecostal Studies, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies
26, no. 1 (Spring 1998), esp. 12.

245
D. Lyle Dabney, Sauls Armor: The Problem and Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today,
Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 23 (2001), 130.

246
Kenneth J. Archer,A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner.
International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 (2007), 311.
1u7
a golden thread through all those who discuss the formative characteristics of Pentecostal
theology.
Pentecostal theology is, in part, the telling of the story of Gods encountering one
in daily life. This theology is possible based on the openness to Gods dynamic
interaction with creation (discussed above). Because Pentecostals are primed for and
expect God by the Holy Spirit to interact with believers, they are pre-critically open to (or
disposed to) a different view of God and thus a different way of doing theology.
Theology that has deep roots in the daily experience of the community will look less like
propositional statements and rational constructs and more like testimony and narrative.
This is not to say that Pentecostal do not engage in theology that incorporates and utilizes
proposition. Indeed, during the reflective process the rational is brought to bear on the
experience in the interpretive process. So Pentecostal theology is experiential and
narrative in that it finds foundation in the retelling, understanding, and interpreting of the
story of the Gospel; that storys encounter and affect in the life of the believer retold,
understood, and interpreted for and to the community of faith. This process helps to
safeguard against ecstatic abuses of errant trajectories. The community plays an
important role in the theological process (Thomass accountability) and, furthermore, the
believers experience is not the only story. The Gospel and Gods revelation are
positioned as anchors to prevent drifting into theologically treacherous waters. The
poignant point here is made by Cross, Merely to write a theology of our experience will
fall into the trap of Schleiermacher and Feuerbach, thereby producing an anthropocentric
theology; and the final powerful point, to write a theology of the God who encounters
1u8
us will not ignore human participation with the divine, but will focus on the divinethe
appropriate object of our reflection (a more theocentric theology).
247

In summary, then, Pentecostal theology is a narrative theology that springs from
the experience of Gods dynamic encounter with believers through the Holy Spirit,
248

which is reflected upon in light of the revelation of Godchiefly in Jesus Christ as
presented to us in Scriptureand in the accountability of the community of faith. This
theological approach has implications for the apologetic method that arises from such a
community. One would expect that an apologetic method that resembles the theological
method will be experiential and narrative. Indeed, as pointed to in the second chapter,
Pentecostals are more comfortable with the experiential model of apologeticsgiven that
they have and expect to experience God in their daily lives. For Pentecostals faith is more
than rationality and propositional statements. One who is Pentecostal and defending his
or her faith will want to do so in a way that is consistent with his or her view of the faith.
As Cross notes, Instead of some modernistic response that appears to have all the
answers already mapped out, Pentecostals can refer to our experiences with God without
feeling inferior to those who offer their long intellectual treatises. It is not that
Pentecostals do not think or cannot think apologeticallywe can and dobut it is rather
that we also know there is more to our faith than can fit into our limited intellects or
language.
249
Faith, for Pentecostals, cannot be reduced to reason (nor to experience) and
thus the method by which they defend their faith cannot be reduced to evidentialist

247
Cross, Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology? 16.

248
Ken Archer points out that in this way, Pentecostal theology is more in line with that of the
Early Church as especially exhibited in the Apostles in the the book of Acts (Archer, Method and
Manner, 307-8).

249
Terry L. Cross, The Divine-Human Encounter: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of
Experience, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 31 (2009), 31-2.
1u9
avenues but must embrace a more holistic view. The question that naturally follows, here,
is what do Pentecostals contribute to the discussion that is not already done so by
experientialist apologetics? The answer to this must be testimony and it is to this that we
now turn.

Pentecostal Apologetics: Testimony

As mentioned already, a Pentecostal apologetic method will build on a foundation
set by those who are working in the area of postmodern apologetics and experientialist
methodologies. However, Pentecostals can contribute their unique element to the
apologetic tasktestimony. In what follows, I will unpack the concept of Pentecostal
testimony and then show how it applies to the task of apologetics.

What is Testimony?

Testimony has a long history in the Pentecostal movement and is a practice that if
asked about it, most Pentecostals would give a testimony as a response rather than an
analytical-etymological answer.
250
Richie points out that Pentecostals are not the only
ones who utilize testimony but that it is universally prevalent among humans but
present in varied ways, occurring in juridical, religious, or social contexts.
251
The
particular context that is important here is religious and the specifics that make
Pentecostal testimony distinctive. In this vein, testimony is speech descriptive of


250
Tony Richie offers a very extensive history and function of testimony in the North American
Pentecostal movement with his Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue
(Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2011), esp. 135-7. How much I am indebted to Richies work will become
evident in this section. The connections he makes between Pentecostal testimony and interreligious
dialogue I think are very similar, if not the same, as those which can be drawn between testimony and
apologetics. I do realize that interreligious dialogue is not apologetics, although an apologetic moment can
arise in such dialogues.

251
Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 130.
11u
religious experience whose purpose is to represent in verbal form a life.
252

Immediately the Pentecostal distinctive becomes clear. Much like in the doing of
theology, experience is a driving factor for Pentecostals. Indeed, their very posture is one
of open expectation of Gods dynamic in-breaking and interacting with his people. From
this posture and coupled with the oral and narrative quality of a Pentecostal way of being
in the world, testimony follows as a natural and elemental part of the whole that
constitutes Pentecostal spirituality and worldview. Testimony is not simply a
propositional recounting of what has happened but as Richie says, it necessarily tends
more toward use of poetical and metaphorical language as it is more efficacious in
communicating certain aspects of the ineffable than analytical or logical language.
253

These descriptions are the broad strokes of testimony that other Christian traditions
would have little trouble with. Pentecostals import more meaning into testimony than is
commonly acceptable for other traditions.
254

Pentecostal Testimony
The distinctives of Pentecostal testimonyavailable to all Christians and thus not
limited to only Pentecostalsprime it for application to apologetics in particularly


252
Ibid., 132. Cheryl Johns also offers a succinct definition of testimony, it is the giving of a
personal account of the ongoing confrontation of the uncertainties of life in Christ. This is far more than the
telling of a story or the recounting of disengaged facts. It is for us an act of interpersonal engagement in
which individuals offer themselves with their limited knowledge of God and life to the group for shared
critical reflection in a process that confronts the common tensions of following Christ and thereby
contributes to the corporate testimony (Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among The Oppressed, Journal
of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 2, eds. John Christopher Thomas, Rick D. Moore, and Steven J.
Land [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 131).

253
Ibid., 131.

254
It is possible that these distinctives would be acceptable in other Christian tradition, however,
these emphases do not appear in other traditions with the same emphasis as with Pentecostals.
111
effective ways.
255
From Tony Richies work it is clear that there are at least three distinct
characteristics of testimony that have direct application to apologetics. The first is the
functional, practical, and autobiographical elements; the second is the transformational
element, and third is the supra rational element. Each of these distinctives will be
examined in turn.
Functional-Practical-Autobiographical
The practical and functional element of testimony in Pentecostal terms was hinted
at above. From the Pentecostal view, testimony is not about rational propositions or
logical syllogism but about illuminating, clarifying, and verifying Gods activity among
his people.
256
As Richie puts it, Testimonies help hearers see the Pentecostal faith more
clearlytestimonies are reminders that God still works in human lives and in the world
todaythe always implicit, and sometimes quite explicit, message is God still does these
things today.
257
Hence, testimony pushes beyond just the functional element. That is,
testimony is not simply viewed from its functional import in Pentecostal community
there is more to this oral-narrative practice than merely story telling. It is narrative and
story, to be sure, and more specifically it is the story of ones particular encounter with
God. It is not a story about someone or something out there but autobiographical and
intimately personal. Richie puts it well, They are autobiographical and doxological


255
I want to be particularly careful to point out that I do not think that Pentecostals have the corner
on testimony and thus its application to the apologetic task is available for all Christians. This is precisely
how Pentecostals contribute to this discussion. They remind other Christians that there is a tool in the tool
box, one that we use frequently, that has been largely ignored but can serve great purpose.

256
This is how French Arrington has characterized Pentecostal testimony. See Richie, Speaking by
the Spirit, 133.

257
Ibid.
112
stories of Gods activity as experienced in human lives here and now.
258
In this way,
testimony is understood in terms that are more technical for Pentecostalsit is the story
of ones personal and spiritual experience and its interconnectivity with the Gospel story.
Again, Richie illuminates this point,
In Pentecostal testimony, the deeds of God are told in faith that these
deeds will be repeated in different contexts as the need arisesPentecostal
testimony is not only a retelling of the history of the biblical story but also
its recapitulation or reenactment in actual human experience for the glory
of God and blessing of Gods people. Pentecostal testimony, therefore,
involves an ongoing dynamic between human experience, the biblical
story, and GodFor Pentecostals, testimonies are concrete assurances,
even, carefully qualified, convincing evidences, at least for eyes of faith,
of one of the most fundamental convictions: that Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday and today and forever (Heb 13.8).
259


Thus testimony is more than mere story telling or recounting history, it is telling his-
story, the story of Christ, again. Yet it is even more than that. It is telling ones own life
story caught up in the story of Christ, conveying its truth and power afresh and new.
260

Because it is more than story telling, testimony affects the hearers and the one telling it.

Spirit Empowered Speech

Testimony moves beyond the realm of the naturalit is Spirit inspired. Implicit
in the theology of testimony, Richie relates, is an affirmation of the power of inspired
speech in the process of constructing realityPractically, testimony, therefore, may be a
means of receiving and then subsequently retaining a promise of divinely blessed
reality.
261
The pneumatological orientation of Pentecostal theology and spirituality


258
Ibid., 135.

259
Ibid., 139.

260
Ibid., 170.

11S
allows for the operation of the Holy Spirit beyond the confines of soteriology. Much like
the preaching of the Gospel is anointed by the Spirit, so too is testimony anointed by the
Spirit. Again, Richies insight is poignant, Because of what Pentecostals believe is an
experience of the Spirits anointing upon speakers, Pentecostal testimony not only states
spiritual insights but also demonstrates spiritual energyAlthough it is difficult to define
or describe, Pentecostal testimony accesses spiritual experience as much as it expresses
it.
262
The recounting of Gods story intersected with the concrete reality of ones life is
infused with the power of the Spirit to affect the one telling the story and those who hear
the story. The very nature of what is recounted invites God to invigorate the hearts and
minds of those who recapitulate and hear. In this way, testimony focuses on the realized
presence of God as it facilitates a dramatized divine-human encounter through sharing
together in the Spirit what God is doing in and among his people through faith in
Christ.
263
Testimony, then, has a way of affecting change in those who tell it and those
who hear it.

Transformational

Because of its pneumatological import, testimony affects its hearers beyond
simple knowledge acquisitionit is transformational. With Cheryl Johns, Richie
understands testimony as part of a complex of transforming movements arising out of
the Pentecostal context of various forms of Spirit energized worship.
264
The Spirits
infusing of the dramatic story of Gods encounter confronts both the speaker and the

261
Ibid., 164.

262
Ibid., 174.

263
Ibid., 166-7.

264
Ibid., 134. Cf. Johns, Pentecostal Formation, 130-8.
114
hearer and this confrontation necessarily affects those involved. There is a mutual
formative process in the recounting of experiencing God. Or as Richie states,
Pentecostal testimonies express the stories of Gods people in ways that transform the
spiritual reality of worshipers as an important element in encountering Gods Spirit and
power in and through worship.
265
The implications for apologetics here should not be
missed. If testimony is an opportunity for mutual formation to occur because of the
Spirits attendance and anointing of the telling, then testimony as part of an apologetic
method has the ability to affect the hearer in ways that propositional, logical
argumentation may not. This does not negate the use or importance of neither rationality
nor argumentation but points to the fact that transformational engagement must occur on
all levels of human existence and testimony is a broad avenue for this engagement.

Supra Rational

A disadvantage of evidential apologetics, as pointed to in chapter two, is the
reduction of human existence to rationalist structures. If humans were merely thinking
things then the debates in which Christian apologists engage on university campuses
would leave the audience and interlocutor as Christians. The solid logical arguments,
which appeal to the mind and rationality, would convince those who hear it beyond doubt
and lead them to faith. However, clearly this is not the case. The arguments are forceful
(often this true for both sides of the debate) and yet many leave unconvinced by either
side (or more convinced by their own side regardless of the logical, rational cogency of


265
Ibid., 135. It is important to note that for Richie the giving of testimony is an act of worship no
matter where it occurs. Thus the Pentecostal who may have objections to interreligious dialogue can find
impetus for engagement in such dialogue because of the implication of worshiping before unbelievers
and the potential positive impact that may have. I think this is just as true for apologetics.
11S
their representative). This points to the fact that more is necessary than mere rationality.
Pentecostalismand the Christian faith in generalmeets this requirement. While, as
Richie points out, Pentecostalism is not sub-rational, it is supra rational. And this comes
to the fore most clearly in testimony; as Richie points out, Testimonies are like
Pentecostal poetry. They are a Pentecostal way of telling what is really inside them.
266

Poetry operates on a level different from rational argumentation. This does not make it
irrational, but supra rational. In this way, testimony is distinct among other oral tellings,
like lecture or formal debate for example. Testimony has a superior ability through story
to draw everyone in as interested and respected participants and partners.
267
Cheryl
Johns explains that testimony involves memory, reflection, and interpretation and that
these elements invite communal participation.
268
Thus, testimony pulls the audience in, in
ways that discursive dialogue does not and it engages them in ways that flies below the
radar of cognitive filters. Testimony, then, is a rich resource for [apologetics] precisely
because it is capable of carrying the most sublime of ideas in a mode that is accessible
and even enjoyable: story.
269

Testimony as Apologetic

Pentecostal testimony as autobiographical (it is not abstract and indifferent but
immensely personal), Spirit empowered (it is not a mere story or drama, but sacramental
because of the Spirits inspiration), and supra rational (it impacts those who hear it in

266
Ibid., 165.

267
Ibid., 166.

268
Johns, Pentecostal Formation, 131.
269
Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 168. I have inserted apologetics where Richie has
interreligious dialogue. Although I realized that his focus is on interreligious dialogue and theology of
religion, I do not think that I have abused his point by adding in apologetics. Through our personal
conversation, I have understood that he also finds similar connections that I am making and thus would be
comfortable with my emendation of his sentence.
116
ways that are more than rational) makes it particularly pertinent to apologetics. This is
especially true in a culture that is more open to spiritual experience and narrative than
propositions and monologuesas is the case with the postmodern milieu. Telling the
story of Gods encounter has the advantage of not purporting to be the meta-narrative that
must be accepted (even if the Christian, or the Pentecostal believes that this story is
available to all). Rather, because the testimony is potentially Spirit inspired
270
it has
power beyond the ability of the one speaking to convince the other of the rational quality
of the Christian faith. Testimony would not become the sole way of doing apologetics,
thus the method enumerated above is still vital, but it should find an important place
among the task of defending the faith. While the Christian faith is not less than rational, it
is much more than rationality and thus inclusion of the story of experiencing Gods
encounter moves the defensive task to a more holistic view of faith. The inclusion of
personal testimony in apologetics reminds the Christian and shows the non-Christian that
faith is more than assent to rational proposition but commitment to a person. What, then,
might a Pentecostal testimony look like? This is an appropriate question given the
importance that has been placed on its role in apologetics. As a way toward an answer, I
propose that the Five-fold Gospel serves as a great example of Spirit inspired testimony. I
want to be careful to note that this is only one example (and one that is particularly
contextual to North America) so that Pentecostal testimony is not limited to nor fully
encompassed by the five-fold gospel.
Five-Fold Gospel


270
I use potentially here to signal that not all recountings are equal. Richie notes this well:
Although at its lowest and worst, testimony can sometimes become inane rambling or distracting diatribe,
at its highest and best, it can and often does become truly inspired and inspiring speech from the Spirit
(Speaking by the Spirit, 137).
117

The Five-fold Gospel is best succinctly articulated as: Jesus is (my) savior,
sanctifier, Spirit baptizer, healer, and King, soon coming.
271
Springing from our
embedded theology, the Five-fold Gospel serves as a starting point for testimony within
the Pentecostal tradition. Our testimony conveys a way of being in the world beyond
mere cerebral acquiescence to propositional statements. The theological reflection offered
in the Five-fold is not intended as a systematic theology; that is, it is a reflection on the
embedded theology latent in a Pentecostal community. It is the confessional move from
the practical experiential way of being in community to reflective theology. The Five-
fold Gospel is an attempt to encompass the entire gospel in testimony. The confession
that Jesus is my savior, he is my sanctifier, he is my Spirit baptizer, he is my healer
(whether physical, emotional, or spiritual and certainly all of these), and He is my King,
soon coming king, attempts to contain in summary form the entire salvific work of
Christ in the life of a Pentecostal. When Pentecostals are confronted with the non-
believer who asks how is it that they know that God exists, the most natural response that
flows from the life of the Pentecostal is his or her testimony, which is contained most
simplistically in the Five-fold Gospel. This approach stands on the philosophical
shoulders of Reformed epistemology and thus is not easily prey to oversimplification as
anti-intellectualism or mere fideism (in the pejorative sense). To be sure, this testimony
and other testimoniesdoes not address all questions and objections that apologetics
proposes to deal with (and thus, other approaches are important also). However, it opens
the discussion to the idea that Christian faith is more than answers to questions and

271
I have preferred R. Hollis Gauses phrasing of the last element. Rather than soon coming
King, Gause has preferred to state it as King, soon coming. This is to signal that Jesus is king currently
and not that he will be king only at his coming.
118
mental assent. Hence, the Pentecostal contribution is no small elementit seeks to bring
integration to a field that has been dominated by rationalism.

Conclusion

Given the cultural climate of postmodernism with its turn from oppressive truth
claims to a more narrative and story-laden approach, Pentecostals are poised perfectly to
defend the faith from the very heart of their faith. The narrative quality and practice of
testimony are the missing elements in many apologetic methods that Pentecostals have
already in their approach to Christian faith. I am not suggesting, however, that this
Pentecostal method is all sufficient. Rather, Pentecostals bring a unique contribution to
what is already in placewe have the ability to fit in a missing puzzle piece to complete
the picture. Therefore, the contributions to apologetics that Pentecostals can make are
hard to overestimate. However, much more work needs to be done than what little
introduction I have provided here. In the next chapter I will point to a few areas that I see
need exploration for the future of Pentecostal Apologetics.

















119







Chapter Four:

The Future of Pentecostal Apologetics































12u
Introduction

This final chapter looks to the future of Pentecostal apologetics. In the process of
writing and researching this thesis, many questions and issues came up that could not be
addressed here. In this chapter I explore some of those questions related to apologetics as
areas that need further research and reflection in the Pentecostal tradition. To be sure,
more than is given here needs to be considered; that is, I do not assume to know all the
avenues of exploration that are necessary for Pentecostal engagement in apologetics.
Therefore, this chapter will be self-consciously limited in scope. Furthermore, it does not
seek to answer all the questions proposed, or assume that they are the appropriate or best
questions. I begin with a look at current Pentecostal engagement in apologetics, then look
at how a Pentecostal theology of culture can aid in doing apologetics.

Current Pentecostal Apologetics

In the first chapter, I discussed how my Pentecostal heritage served as part of the
impetus for my journey to a more Reformed characterized faith. A part of that was my
growing interest in apologetics and the distinct lack of my own tradition to meet this
need. The question that pressed me then, and does even now, was, What are Pentecostals
doing in the area of apologetics? The answer came all too quickly: nothing. Even as I
began to research this topic, I found very little by way of published material from
Pentecostals on apologetics.
272
However, as I began to process the role of testimony in

272
The only Pentecostal that I have found who engages in apologetics on the academic level is
Joseph Davis, associate professor of religion at Southeastern University. He has earned a PhD in
apologetics from Westminster Theological Seminary; he is perhaps the only Pentecostal scholar who has
pursued this area. This is not to say that other scholars who are Pentecostals are not engaged in apologetics
at some level. Indeed, Terry Cross, as part of the systematic theology course that all students who major in
a religion component must take (Pastoral Ministries, Youth Ministries, Bible & Theology, etc), focuses
certain class sessions on arguments for Gods existence and other pertinent apologetic issues. Without
121
apologetics, I came to realize that Pentecostals are engaged in apologetics consistently.
To be sure, this does not look like the methods I came to know from luminaries like
Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, or Greg Koukl. Furthermore,
Pentecostals have much room to grow in this vital area of the Christian life. To that end, I
would like to point to areas of potential growth and expansion available to Pentecostals
areas where they might put into practice the implicit spirituality that can function as
apologetics.
I have been, and continue to be, a member of the Church of God (Cleveland, TN),
which is has a long history as a North American Pentecostal church. Thus, what I offer
here is pertinent to this denomination particularly but applicable across denominational
lines. Our tradition would benefit from church ministries and para-church ministries that
focus on doing apologetics. At this time, The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has no
ministries that are denomination-wide that are oriented toward apologetics. There are no
centralized resources available to assist local churches in answering the tough questions
leveled against the faith. This is not to say that local churches are not answering such
questions; they are indeed.
273
However, an area and opportunity for the Pentecostal
community is to expand by starting organized and intentional groups that provide
apologetical resources to the local churches.
274
Without a doubt, Pentecostals are doing
apologetics and this is happening in the local churches where Christians are tackling the

doubt this is happening in other places also. However meta-apologetic issues are not the concern in
systematic theology (and rightly so).

273
Over the summer of 2012, the Pentecostal Theological Seminary hosted a Youth Summer
Institute designed to expose high school and freshmen college students to apologetics. I was privileged to
take part as an instructor. I mention this to point out that the denomination has members who desire to lead
and others who want to learn about apologetics.
274
Appendix B of this thesis offers a basic syllabus for an introduction to apologetics course that
could be taught in a Sunday School, Wednesday Family Training Hour, or Bible study setting.

122
tough questions that come up in areas of life. These Pentecostals would benefit greatly
from a concerted effort by denominational leaders and local church leaders to plug into
and create resources for apologetics. These resources are not lacking since there are a
great many para-church groups who exist especially to assist churches in developing
apologetic material and sources.
275

An important place to start for the local church is small group meetings. Already
churches are meeting either for Sunday Schools or small groups. The next step is to focus
intentionally and specifically on apologetic issues and how the church and Pentecostals
are to address these issues. To be fair, this is taking place in some churches, however
there are no denomination-wide curricula to assist pastors and lay leaders in the
apologetic endeavor. The resources available on the internet from well-established
apologetic organizations and top-tier apologists are not lacking and thus there remains no
reason why the Pentecostal church should be lacking in meeting the needs of its people.
Yet, what may account for the lack of focus is a pastoral staff with little exposure
to the subject of apologetics (and theology in general). What is clear is that pastors and
congregants are facing questions that are addressed by apologetics. What is not clear is
how well prepared a pastor or lay leader is to handle these questions. To be sure, the
major Pentecostal undergraduate and graduate schools include in their catalogue a course
in apologetics;
276
however, none requires as part of the program a course in

275
A few such organizations are: William Lane Craigs Reasonable Faith
(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/); Greg Koukls Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org/); Ravi Zachariass
organization RZIM (http://www.rzim.org/); Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/); the two last
organizations specifically help with apologetics teaching material for use in the local church, The Truth
Project (http://www.thetruthproject.org/) and TrueU (http://www.trueu.org/). I have included a more
detailed list in Appendix A.

276
Southeastern University has more than one course listed for apologetics, no doubt due to
Joseph Daviss specialization and focus.
12S
apologetics.
277
As a part of ministry preparation, future pastors and lay ministers should
have some encounter and training in the area of apologetics. This area shows itself as
equally important as other ministry courses and a point of opportunity for Pentecostals.
Much like local church ministries, the resources to help college and seminary students
prepare for thinking apologetically are not lacking.
278
Pentecostals should avail
themselves of these resources until they are capable of creating and disseminating their
own. The major Pentecostal institutions of higher education have on their faculties
qualified theologians who can teach a course in apologetics. Competent theologians, then,
are not lacking so that adding a course (or replacing another course) in apologetics is a
reasonable move toward addressing the lack in Pentecostal apologetics.
The lack of intentional apologetic work may be indicative of an implicit
theological commitment. There is no conflict, in principle, between Pentecostal
spirituality and the task of apologetics. However, at least two things can be observed by
the lack of Pentecostal engagement in defending the faith. First, the movement is still
young and as such has not had the time to develop leaders and thinkers in all areas of the
theological tasks. Thus, the lack of apologetic focus could be attributed to the
development as a movement; as Pentecostalism matures and grows in theological
reflection, it will expand into other areas of thought including apologetics. Unlike the
Reformed traditions or broadly Arminian traditions, Pentecostals have not had the same
amount of time to raise leaders and theologians to explore all of the theological loci.


277
The one possible exception to this is the Assemblies of God school, Northwestern University,
which offers a master of arts in theology and culture. This program requires courses that are closely related
to apologetics.

278
Two premier organizations that focus on helping college students is The Veritas Forum
(http://www.veritas.org/) and Ratio Christi (http://ratiochristi.org/). The above noted organizations also
provide a great many resources for college students.
124
Given this, it follows that apologetics may be one of those areas, while important, that
has not been the pressing need of Pentecostal congregations.
The second observation could be that there is a theological pre-commitment that
steers Pentecostals away from defending the faith. Some support for this may be seen in
the accusation that Pentecostals are anti-intellectual. This, however, does not consider the
whole picture of apologetics, especially as I am attempting to paint it in this thesis.
Furthermore, this connection also fails to take into account the many responses
Pentecostals have given to the accusation coupled with the many works dedicated to
explaining the theological method of Pentecostal spirituality.
279
These two factors
mitigate strongly against the impetus being anti-intellectualism. What it rather points to is
that no contemporary apologetic method has fully embraced the Pentecostal ethos.
Therefore, Pentecostals have been adverse to venturing into a practice that cuts against
the grain of who they are. For that reason, it is clear that the first factorthe youth of the
movementcoupled with the conflict of current methodology and Pentecostal ethos, is to
be seen as the most reasonable accounting for the lack of a Pentecostal apologetics. More
than accounting for the lack of Pentecostal engagement in defending the faith is needed.
Pentecostals, with their unique contributions and methodology, must engage their
leadersboth clergy and layin apologetics training. This can most readily take place in

279
On Pentecostal responses to anti-intellectualism, most characteristically expressed by Mark
Noll in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, see James K.A. Smith, Scandalizing Theology: A
Pentecostal Response to Nolls Scandal, Pneuma 19, no. 2 (Fall 1997); and Cheryl Bridges Johns,
Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan Pentecostal Scholarship, Pneuma 21, no. 2 (Fall 1999). On Pentecostal
theological method see: John Christopher Thomas, Pentecostal Theology in the Twenty-First Century,
Pneuma 20, no 1 (Spring 1998), Terry L. Cross, The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the
Main Dish or Only the Relish? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000) and A Proposal to Break the
Ice: What Can Pentecostal Theology Offer Evangelical Theology? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10,
no. 2 (2002); Christopher A. Stephenson, The Rule of Spirituality and the Rule of Doctrine: A Necessary
Relationship in Theological Method, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 1 (2006); Kenneth J. Archer,
A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner, International Journal of Systematic
Theology 9, no. 3 (July 2007).
12S
two locations: first, the local church, through small groups, Sunday School, and
conferences; second, at the level of academic training, through making apologetics a part
of the core theological training at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Pentecostal Theology of Culture and Apologetics

The changing cultural milieu offers a unique place to Pentecostals in terms of
doing apologetics from a testimonial stand point, as I attempted to show in chapters two
and three. This change opens up new areas for apologetics that are just recently being
explored. As the commitment to a rationalistic paradigm is challenged by postmodernism
and the way is opened to engage people in affectional or dispositional avenues, more
exploration will need to be done to understand the potential connections between
apologetics and the arts. However, prior to this, Pentecostals will need to enumerate a
theology of creation that provides a foundation for a theology of culture.
Much like apologetics, Pentecostals have not yet expounded a theology of culture
that will facilitate a dialogue between apologetics and the arts. To be sure, there has been
an embedded theology of culture. Although Richard Niebuhrs work has been rightfully
critiqued, he still offers some helpful categories for thinking through, at least
preliminarily, a theology of culture.
280
Pentecostals, like all other Christian traditions, do
not wholly, nor neatly, fit into just one of Niebuhrs categories; however, a couple
observations on the theological history and commitments have given Pentecostals a
particular affinity with Niebuhrs Christ against Culture paradigm. The implications of
this affinity and apologetics will be clear after some explanation.

280
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ & Culture (New York, NY: HarperCollins Pub., 1951).
126
In his Theological Roots of Pentecostalism,
281
Donald Dayton has shown that
Pentecostals have the holiness tradition as a primary root. Indeed, Adam Stewart has
pointed out that the Wesleyan Holiness movement made what was the most important
contribution to the development of Pentecostal Christianity.
282
This tradition was not
monolithic and neither were the subsequent interpretations of it by Pentecostal ministers
and members. Part and parcel of this tradition of holiness, as it became interpreted by
Pentecostals, was the importance of separation from the world. The various secondary
roots that made such an interpretation almost necessary are numerousa study of which
is out of the scope of this thesis. Suffice it to say, the early Pentecostal commitment to
holiness meant a separation from worldliness, which in turn became a separation from
the world. Thus, as one example among many, in order to avoid the appearance of evil
a common and important phrase among Pentecostalsgoing to the movies/theater was
prohibited. Important here is not to enumerate the list of dos and donts that
characterized the holiness strain of Pentecostalism, rather to point out that a certain
commitment to holiness necessarily impacted the way in which Pentecostals approached
culture. This in turn led to a Christ against culture paradigm. The more legalistic
tendencies of the early interpretation of holiness have waned, but the cultural
implications still need to be thought through. One path to this reflective approach to
culture is a theology of creation.


281
Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub.,
1987), 63-79.

282
Adam Stewart, Holiness Movement, in Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, ed. Adam
Stewart (Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012), 117.
127
Perhaps not unlike apologetics, Pentecostal theology still in its maturing stages
has not considered the role of culture in a theology of creation. If it is the case that
cultureas the receptacle of what humans dois intrinsically part of creation, then
culture itself is not bad. Rather, it is, as with all other aspects of creation, good but deeply
affected by sin. Unfortunately, Pentecostal thinking about creation has been determined
by a fundamentalist-dispensational eschatology.
283
This was not always the case and even
now is being moved away from, as Peter Althouse has noted.
284
The dispensational view
of creation that Pentecostals adopted in the middle of our history has dictated a low view
of creation and thus a low view of culture.
285
The idea here was that ultimately the work
done in terms of culture is unimportant because in the eschaton a new heaven and earth
will be created after the destruction of this current world. Coupled with holiness, such a
view makes it clear why Pentecostals have not engaged in culture-creating elements such
as art, theater, literature, etc.
286
What is needed then is a Pentecostal theology of creation

283
Donald Bowdle makes a similar point saying, The scandal of the Pentecostal mind has been its
reluctanceeven refusalto engage culture on its own grounds in the finest tradition of the Christian faith.
Several conditions may have conjoined in yesteryear to occasion such a posture, one of which he posits as,
imminent expectations of premillennial eschatology (Donald Bowdle Informed Pentecostalism: An
Alternative Paradigm, in The Spirit and the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism, eds. Terry L. Cross
and Emerson B. Powery [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000], 10).

284
Peter Althouse, Eschatology, in Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, ed. Adam Stewart
(Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012), 74.

285
Current trends in Pentecostal theology has been a focus on the five-fold gospel as the ordering
paradigm. One question this raises is: if the five-fold is the ordering theological paradigm (as at least
Kenneth Archer has argued, whereas Frank Macchia has denied this), then what room is there for a
theology of creation? In other words, where does a theology of creation fit in the five-fold paradigm?

286
This listing surely limits culture to a peculiar understanding and leaves out the important
elements of culture, even as I have characterized it, that Christians must not engage in. Furthermore, I
recognize that in my use of culture I have left out the contributions that Pentecostals have had in terms of
music and hymns/poetry. To be sure, Pentecostals have made contributions to culture, thusly defined, and
in that case do not distain culture (thus, as I mentioned, do not wholly nor neatly fit into Niebuhrs Christ
against culture model). As a whole and in general, Pentecostals have not made large contributions to the
arts culture, but rather have avoided, ignored, or repudiated such culture.
128
that appropriately and fairly views culture as a potential means to apologetics. To this
connection between culture and apologetics I now turn.
With the turn toward a postmodern cultural milieu and the repudiation of
epistemological foundationalism and rationalism comes the openness to other avenues of
knowing (as described in the previous chapters). This makes room for culture as a means
of communicating truth. The implications for apologetics are vast. More work from the
broadly Christian perspective as well as from a particularly Pentecostal trajectory, needs
to be done on how art may serve an apologetic function. What role does the Spirit have in
the creation of art (broadly construed) and what consequence does this have for
apologetics? As an answer, a pneumatological approach to art could give it prophetic
shape. In terms of poetry, Rickie Moore has pointed out the prophetic use of art.
287
He
argues that a prophet is a poet and the use of poetry moves at a level deeper than rational
discourse. It was generated from and directed toward more than merely the goal of
instructing or informing the mind. It was more about the moving, the provoking, and the
transforming of the imagination.
288
If poetry, or art in general, has this prophetic
possibility, then the import for apologetics is readily visible. Art, as Rickie goes on to
point out, has a way of by-passing the rationalistic armor and striking at the core of a
person. Apologetic arguments often bounce off of the postmodern armor but an
apologetic that uses art inspired by the Spirit takes on a prophetic power that by-passes
the armor and strikes to the center, affecting the dispositions and imagination. This line of


287
Rickie D. Moore, The Prophetic Calling: An Old Testament Profile and its Relevance for
Today, The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24 (2004), 20-23.

288
Ibid., 21.
129
thinking needs more exploration and the future of Pentecostal apologetics will need to
examine the possibilities of art in the life of defending the faith.
289


Conclusion

Much more needs to be explored in terms of the future of Pentecostal apologetics
than I have mentioned here.
290
What is clear is that as one of the fastest growing
movements in Christianity, Pentecostals have a great opportunity to make an impact on
and for apologetics. We bring to the table unique gifts and foci that speak to people
without the modernistic rhetoric of evidential apologetics and that connect with who
people are. In this way, Pentecostals are especially poised to do apologetics with a
postmodern world, but we are not limited only to Western postmodern, post-Christian
endeavors. Sharing our story as part of the greater story of God saving the world reaches
beyond the locality of the West and touches all humanity.













289
Other Christian traditions have recognized the importance that the arts can have in apologetics.
Houston Baptist University offers a master of arts in apologetics, which focuses on the role of the arts in
apologetics and it is the only one of its kind to this point. For more information see:
http://www.hbu.edu/Choosing-HBU/Academics/Colleges-Schools/School-of-Christian-Thought/Graduate-
Degrees-and-Programs/Majors/Master-of-Arts-in-Apologetics.aspx

290
I have limited areas of exploration in this part to only practical realms where Pentecostals need
to expand. However, I see at least two other figures who can contribute a fuller methodological approach
by dialogue with their works, Wilhelm Herrmann and Sren Kierkegaard.
1Su
APPENDIX A


Internet Resources


Apologist Specific Sites:
http://www.rzim.org/home.aspx
o Ravi Zacharias International Ministries Ravi Zacharias website
perhaps the most well known name in Christian apologetics; Ravi has a
multitude of reference resources available.
o Podcast: http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/podcasting.aspx
o Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia/videos

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
o Reasonable Faith William Lane Craigs website. There are a multitude
of resources available, both academic and lay-level, written by Craig and
podcasts of question and answer from emails. He also has his Sunday
school class available for download/podcast. Craig specializes in
philosophical arguments fr the existence of God, particularly the Kalam
cosmological argument. He also addresses many philosophical, biblical,
and theological questions in articles and podcasts. As one of the most
popular debaters, Craig has a substantial amount of debates available for
download also.
o Podcast:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_m
ain
o Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos/videos
! (This is channel is not run by Craig himself, but another individual;
although all the videos are of William Lane Craig.)
o Apologetics315 (Apologetic Blog site) has set up a debate feed for many
of Craigs debates:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/WilliamLaneCraigDebateFeed
! The debate feed is a subscribable podcast that has all available
debates between Craig and others.

http://www.reasons.org/
o Reasons to Believe Hugh Ross website dedicated to providing
scientific research in support of Christianity. The resources available here
are generally in response to scientific challenges against Christianity.
Particularly good writing is available concerning evolution, creation, and
intelligent design.

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
o Stand to Reason. Greg Koukl and staff have written many resources,
mostly lay-level, on every apologetic issue facing Christians. Their
1S1
specially is developing a method of apologetic that is winsome, fair and
tactical. They also have staff that focus on issues pertaining particularly to
youth, issues of Islam, and bio-ethics.
o Podcast: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcast
o Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/STRvideos/videos

http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/
o Institute of Biblical Defense Phil Fernandezs website designed to
train Christians to defend their faith, he offers certificate programs and
many resources written and video on apologetic issues. He also has
debates available that he has done with skeptics, atheists, and other
Christians.

http://www.aomin.org/
o Alpha & Omega Ministries James Whites website White offers
reasoned responses to challenges to biblical Christianity from within and
without. Articles, podcasts, and debates are available.
o Webcast/Podcast: http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
o Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689/videos



General Resource Sites:
http://www.apologetics.org/
o C.S. Lewis Society, although home to the academic society they also
provide articles related to the defense of the Christian faith.

http://www.apologetics.com/
o Various resources pertinent to apologetics.

http://www.apologetics315.com/
o A blog site that addresses many issues of apologetics and theology. This
site has a particularly good resource of audio interviews, debates, lectures,
etc.

http://www.bethinking.org/
o This site is similar to the Veritas Forum. They provide articles, audio, and
video from multiple Christian thinkers on various topics of apologetic
concern. They are also ranked in level of difficulty from very popular
level to scholarly.

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/
o Biblical Training offers thousands of hours of lectures from college and
seminary professors on courses from Bible, theology, philosophy, and
apologetics.

1S2
http://carm.org/
o Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry specializes in a biblical and
theological response to other religions. They also have articles addressing
philosophical and scientific objections to Christianity.
o Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/carmorgpodcasting

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/index.html
o Rational Christianity is a searchable database of articles in response to
skeptics and atheistic answers with links to more information on other
apologetic websites.

http://www.thetruthproject.org/
o The Truth Project, founded by Focus on the Family, is a curriculum
intended for small groups to learn the basics of a Christian worldview.
DVDs and other materials are provided but are not free and require
registration.

http://www.trueu.org/
o TrueU is a full course curriculum in the basics of apologetics. It is
designed to be used in church groups and comes with DVDs and print
materials to aid in teaching. There is a cost for all the materials.

http://www.powerpointapologist.org/index.html
o The PowerPoint Apologist is a site dedicated to creating powerpoints for
use in teaching apologetics. This is great resource for tapping into visual
teaching aids particularly when the teacher has little time, training, or
resources to create his or her own.

http://www.veritas.org/
o The Veritas Forum. A site dedicated to making available lectures given on
college campuses, secular and Christian, by Christian thinkers. Video and
audio downloads are available addressing multifarious topics of
contemporary concern.



Issue Specific Sites:
http://www.arn.org/
o Access Research Network provides information on science, technology
and society with particular interest in Intelligent Design

http://www.closertotruth.com/
o Closer to Truth explores cosmos, consciousness and God. The format is
primarily video of interviews, lead by a skeptic, with leading thinkers in
the areas of science, philosophy and religion. Not all of the videos are
1SS
friendly to the Christian worldview, that is, some are from the atheistic
perspective

http://www.discovery.org/
o Discovery Institute research into Intelligent Design

http://ehrmanproject.com/
o The Ehrman Project responding to the objections raised by Bart Ehrman.
And thus is focused on textual issues, for example, the reliability of the
Bible.
o Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ehrmanproject/videos

http://prolifetraining.com/
o Life Training Institute offering a reasoned pro-life defense.



Podcasts and Other Media in Support of Apologetics:
iTunesU
o iTunesU, where the U stands for university, is a searchable database
through ITunes of seminary, university, and college lectures. Often these
are recordings of regular class lectures or special lectures. The database is
searchable and most resources are free; there is a large collection of
lectures that relate to apologetics, Christian theology, and Philosophy of
religion that would be helpful to anyone seeking to learn more and lead
small groups.
o https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/itunes-u/id490217893?mt=8
! This is not the exact web address because iTunesU is built into the
ITunes program, but it will open the Apple website with more
information about iTunesU
o Related to iTunesU is the podcast section of iTunes. Multiple ministries
provide a subscribable podcast (e.g. William Lane Craig, Stand to Reason,
and Ravi Zacharias) that can be downloaded and listened to whenever.
This can be an invaluable resource to anyone studying apologetics since
professional level material is available for free.

MP3 Religious Debates, Christian Apologetics Talks, Catholic EWTN
o This site has a host of MP3s from different apologists and debates.
o http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/audio.htm

Truthbomb Apologetics
o A blog that has a particular page linking multiple ebooks/PDFs of books
that pertain to apologetics and/or philosophy of religion.
o http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-apologetics-e-book-
library.html

1S4
Unbelievable?
o A Saturday radio program in the UK that looks at two perspectives on
issues of apologetics and theology; it is available as a podcast. The host,
Justin Brierley often has guests on both sides of the issues and moderates a
dialogue.
o http://www.premierradio.org.uk/unbelievable.aspx








































1SS
APPENDIX B

Introduction to Apologetics, Course Syllabus, Sample Lesson Plan & Sample
PowerPoint


Course Description:
This course/class is an introduction to apologetics. It is designed to equip the student to
defend his or her faith against the major objections faced in culture and from antagonists
like the New Atheists. Special attention will be given to a method that is congruent with a
Pentecostal worldview.

Course/Class Objectives:
Understand biblical material and mandate for apologetics.
Articulate brief history of apologetics.
Gain knowledge of New Atheists objections.
Ability to articulate ones own worldview and assess other worldviews.
Be able to articulate and understand the major apologetic defenses of the faith.
Comprise a personal method of apologetics.

Required Texts (Potential):
Boa, Kenneth D., & Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative
Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster,
2006.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3d edition.
Wheaton IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Sire, James. A Little Primer On Humble Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books,
2006.

Methodology:
Lecture
Discussion
Reading Assignments (schedule available on first class)
Reflection Journal
Writing Assignment (details available on first class)
Exam(s)

Course/Class Outline:
1S6
I. Apologetics: What is it and why do it?
A. Simple definition
B. Biblical mandate
1. 2 Cor. 10.3-5
2. 1 Pet. 3.15
3. Jude 3
C. Purpose
1. Offensive
2. Defensive
3. Strengthen believers
D. History
1. Early Church
2. Medieval Thinkers
3. Reformers
4. Modern & Postmodern
II. Objections: What we face
A. New Atheism
1. Who are they
a. Dawkins
b. Dennett
c. Harris
d. Hitchens
2. Objections
a. Faith
i. Wishful thinking
ii. Not reasonable
b. Religion is evil
i. Bible condones/commands evil
ii. Religious people commit evil
c. The Bible
i. Fiction
ii. Too erroneous
d. Science disproves God
i. Natural selection
ii. Design/I.D. is pseudoscience
e. Problem of evil
i. Too much evil for a good God
B. Cultural Trends
1. Postmodernism
a. Relativism
i. Morality
ii. Truth
b. Pluralism
i. Tolerance/Intolerance
2. Worldview Analysis
III. How do we respond
1S7
A. Method
1. Ambassadorial-Dialogical Apologetics
a. Character
i. Humility
ii. Integrity
b. Knowledge
i. Role of Holy Spirit
ii. Noetic affects of sin
c. Wisdom
i. Conversational
ii. Socratic
B. Answering the challengers
1. New Atheists
a. Faith
i. Biblical definition
ii. Theological understanding
b. Religion and evil
i. Does the Bible command evil?
ii. What about religious who commit evil?
c. The Bible
i. Reliability
ii. Authenticity
d. Science vs. God?
i. Theological origins of science
e. Problem of evil
i. Atheistic world view depraved of good answer to evil or
foundation for good
2. Culture
a. Relativism
i. Self referentially absurd
b. Hypocrisy
i. Honesty
ii. Character
(1). Humility
(2). Integrity











1S8

Sample Lesson Plan:

Required Assignments:
N/A

Objectives:
Introduce Apologetics
Familiarize students with objections to Christianity
Introduce New Atheist
Present objections offered by Dawkins, Harris, & Hitchens
Develop a method of apologetic response
Engage ideas of postmodern context
Define a postmodern apologetic method
Offer a practical defense of Christian Faith

Key Terms:
Empiricism Epistemology Evidence
Apologetics
Evidentialism Meta-narrative New Atheists
Noetic Objectivity/Neutrality Postmodernity
Problem of Evil Theological Rationalism Tolerance


Outline:
IV. Apologetics: What is it and why do it?
A. Simple definition
B. Biblical mandate
C. Purpose
V. Objections: What we face
A. New Atheism
1. Who are they
2. Objections
B. Cultural Trends
VI. How do we respond
A. Method
1. Ambassadorial-Dialogical Apologetics
B. Answering the challengers
1. New Atheists
2. Culture






1S9

Sample Group Work Assignment:



Group Members:
________________________________________________________________________

As a part of being Christian, we are faced with many challenges to our beliefs. Those
who are not believers often take issue with our view of life how we understand the
world to be and work. Listed below are a four objections/challenges that are often given
against Christianity; briefly answer one of the objections with your group. (You will be
presenting your answers to the class.)

1. The Bible is not completely authentic or accurate. The Bible is full of errors and
contradictions.








2. Theres too much evil and suffering in the world for there to be a good God. The
coexistence of God and evil is a logical contradiction. How can there be a good
God when there is so much suffering in the world?








3. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All truth is relative.








4. Arent all religions basically the same? Christianity cant be the only way! All
roads lead to the top of the mountain.
14u

APPENDIX C

Apologetics Resources:

Beckwith, Francis J., & Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
The authors present reasoned arguments against relativism both at the popular level and
academic. A chapter is devoted to practical application.

, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, (eds). To Everyone an Answer: a
Case For the Christian Worldview: Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.
Multifarious authors contribute to five broad areas (1) faith, reason and the necessity of
apologetics; (2) Gods existence; (3) Christ and miracles; (4) philosophical and cultural
challenges to Christian faith; (5) religious challenges to Christian faith.

Boa, Kenneth D., & Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative
Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster,
2006.
Boa and Bowman examine common methods of apologetics and the thinkers associated
then they offer the best case for Christianity from those thinkers and perspectives.

Chamberlain, Paul. Can We Be Good Without God? A Conversation About Truth,
Morality, Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Written as a group discussion, Chamberlain addresses how morality is grounded. Each
voice represents a different viewpoint: relativist, humanist, evolutionist, and theist.

Chesterton, G. K. Orthodoxy. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2009.
Chestertons work is an apologetic classic. He offers a particularly good critique of
naturalism

Clark, David K., & Norman L. Geisler. Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique
of Pantheism. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.
As the title suggests, Clark and Geisler offer a refutation of the New Age ideals most
clearly seen in pantheism.

Copan, Paul. That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge
Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

. How Do You Know You're Not Wrong?: Responding to Objections That Leave
Christians Speechless. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2008.

141
. True For You, But Not For Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith.
Revised edition. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009.

The previous four titles are similar in structure and intent. They present common
objections to the Christian faith and offer a thoughtful response. Both careful thinking
and practical application come to bear in these texts. They are particularly helpful in
giving brief and accessible answers to popular questions against Christianity.

. (ed). Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other
Objectors. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009.
Apologetic specialists offer their best responses to the common objection found in the
New Atheists.

______________, & William Lane Craig, (eds). Passionate Conviction: Contemporary
Discourses On Christian Apologetics. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007.
The broad themes of apologetics (God, Jesus, Comparative Religions, Postmodernism
and Relativism, and Practical Application) are addressed by different Christian thinkers.

Cowan, Steven B., (ed). Five Views On Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2000.
Counterpoint book where the method of apologetics is the topic of discussion. This text is
theoretical in focus but shows how differing apologists engage the task of defending the
faith.

Craig, William Lane. Hard Questions, Real Answers. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
2003.
Popular questions that assail Christians are addressed. Two chapters are devoted to the
problem of evil.

. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3d edition. Wheaton IL:
Crossway Books, 2008.
Craigs seminal work on apologetics written at an academic level and designed to provide
a comprehensive apologetic for Christianity.

, & Chad Meister, (eds). God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is
Reasonable and Responsible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009.
This is a collection of essays responding to the common New Atheist challenges.

, & J.P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
Craig and Moreland attempt to construct a thorough-going philosophical positive case
and exposition of the Christian faith. The text is more of a philosophy of religion for
Christianity than overt apologetics, however arguments for Christianitys truthfulness
abound.

. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell
142
Publishing, 2009.
Collection of articles arguing for the existence of God, each from a different author and
presenting a different argument. This is a very high level text that requires academic
training in philosophy to fully comprehend.

Dulles, Avery Robert Cardinal. A History of Apologetics. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 2005.
Dulless book is one of the best introductions to the history of apologetics.

Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
The authors offer a comprehensive case for Christianity as more reasonable than atheism.
They address the major issues concerning the positive case for faith. Geislers and
Tureks book is a great introduction text to apologetics.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.
Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
As titled, Groothuiss magnum opus constructs a cumulative case for the Christian faith.
Chapters are devoted to the major loci of apologetics. This is a phenomenal text for an
apologetics course since it covers all the major apologetic concerns in one volume.

. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of
Postmodernism. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2000.
Groothuis takes a negative view of postmodernism in this book and offers a refutation of
it from a biblical and Christian philosophical perspective. It is particularly good at
pointing to the potential pitfalls of postmodernism.

Hahn, Scott, & Benjamin Wiker. Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins'
Case Against God. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2008.
Hahn and Wiker take an educators approach to responding to Dawkins.

Keller, Timothy. The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Reprint edition.
New York, NY: Riverhead Trade, 2009.
Keller divides his presentation into two sections the first addresses the most common
objections of atheists and the second section makes a positive case for Christianity.
Kellers work would serve very well and introductory text for apologeticsit is very
accessible.

Koukl, Gregory. Tactics: a Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
This is a practical guide for how to defend the faith and dialogue with hostile non-
Christians. Koukl offers many very accessible examples of how to navigate through
conversations and handle hostile objectors with grace and poise.

, & Ronald Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to
14S
Questions of Faith. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2009.
Kreeft and Tacelli address the common topics of apologetics: existence of God, Christ,
Morality, and other religions. The newest edition added the Catholic in the title and a
small chapter Twenty Catholic Capstones to Christian Apologetics the book is not a
defense of a specifically Catholic faith. As the title suggest, also, it is a handbook, each
chapter is a brief exposition of answers to common objections to Christianity.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2001.
Although not a trained apologist, Lewiss work has become a classic among apologetic
books. He offers a very good moral argument for Gods existence.

Licona, Michael, & William A. Dembski, (eds). Evidence For God: 50 Arguments For
Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2010.
Collection of articles from different thinkers on the apologetic issues surrounding
philosophy, science, Jesus, and the Bible.

McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern
World. New York, NY: Galilee Trade, 2006.
McGrath traces the intellectual history of atheism and makes a case for its eventual
dissolution.

. Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running On Empty?
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011.

, & Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism
and the Denial of the Divine (Veritas Books). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books,
2010.
The McGraths address Dawkins God Delusion, however not as a point by point rejoinder
but to his general philosophical and theological errors.

Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City: a Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 1987.
Morelands contribution to apologetic text, which tackles the major issues presented by
skeptics.

Nash, Ronald H. Faith and Reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Nash presents a strong philosophy of religion but also offers good chapters on Gods
existence, the problem of evil and miracles.

. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Nash presents arguments against inclusivism and pluralism.

. The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan
Thought? 2d edition. Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2003.
144
The case against the accusation that Christianity is a copy religion from pagan and
mystery religions one of the few that attempts such a comprehensive defense.

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
Pearcey does not make a positive apologetic, rather she addresses the cultural milieu and
its impact on thoughtful Christianity both as a challenge intellectually and morally.

Sire, James W. Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 1994.
Sire explores the nature of belief and makes a case for the Christian way of being.

. Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case For Christ.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006.
Sire looks at arguments for Christianity that do not work and then offers a few that do
work.

. A Little Primer On Humble Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006.
This little book should be required reading for anyone wanting to do apologetics. Sire
looks at how we can practice apologetics with Christian virtue, not how to win
arguments.

Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Rev. edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
USA, 2010.
The existence of God is the best explanation for the way the world isthis is Swinburne
contention and the case he makes.

Zacharias, Ravi. (ed). Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith That We Defend. Nashville, TN:
Thomas
Nelson, 2008.
Collection of articles by various apologists addressing the nature of the questions facing
Christianity.

, & Norman L. Geisler, (eds). Who Made God?: and Answers to Over 100 Other
Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
The answers to the tough questions have been written by different thinkers and they
address the major questions of skepticism, atheism, and theology.



Miracles/The Supernatural

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the
Monism-Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.

14S
Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical
Miracles. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Geivett, R. Douglas, & Gary R. Habermas, (eds). In Defense of Miracles: a
Comprehensive Case For God's Action in History. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
1997.

Habermas, Gary R., & J. P. Moreland. Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence For
Immortality. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Moreland, J.P. What Is the Soul? Recovering Human Personhood in a Scientific
Age. Atlanta, GA: RZIM, 2002.

Rowe, William L., Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. 4th edition. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing, 2007



The Problem of Evil
291


Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. Reissue edition. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010.

Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense Out of Suffering. Ann Arbor, MI: Charis Books, 1986.

Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2001.

Leibniz, G.W. Theodicy: Essays On the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the
Origin of Evil. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1998.

Poole, Garry. How Could God Allow Suffering and Evil? Revised edition. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, USA, 1998.



Reliability of Scripture

291
The remaining sources I have not annotated since they fall under a specific heading which
helps to locate where the text fits into the apologetical discussion. It needs to be noted that some of these
text come from a less conservative Christian stance (that is, some do not take a confessionally Evangelical
view of Scripture) but are still very helpful in understanding the main issues associated with each heading.
146

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2d edition. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Geisler, Norman, & William Nix. From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible. Chicago,
IL: Moody Publishers, 1980.

Metzger, Bruce M., & Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. 4th edition. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, USA, 2005.

Orr-Ewing, Amy. Is the Bible Intolerant? Sexist? Oppressive? Homophobic? Outdated?
Irrelevant? Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006.

Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon.
2d edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development
of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.





Historical Jesus

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008.

Bock, Darrell L., The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative
Christianities. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Borg, Marcus J., Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious
Revolutionary. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasa.
New York, NY: HarperOne, 1991.

Edwards, James R. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2005.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2008.
147

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For the Life of Christ. Joplin,
MO: College Press Publishing Company, Inc., 1996.

____________________., & Michael R. Licona. The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus.
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, & Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: How
Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1. New York, NY:
Anchor Bible, 1991.

Swinburne, Richard. The Resurrection of God Incarnate. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press 2003.

Wilkins, Michael J., (ed). Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the
Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: the Third Search For the Jew of Nazareth. 2d
edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1997.





Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design

Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 10
th

Anniversary edition. New York, NY: Free Press, 2006.

Craig, William Lane, & Quentin Smith. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 1995.

Dembski, William A., (ed). Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998.

., (ed). Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids,
MI: Brazos Press, 2001.

., & Charles W. Colson. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest
Questions About Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2004.

., & Michael Ruse, eds. Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
148

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. 3d edition. Bethesda, MD: Adler &
Adler, 1986.

. Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.
Original edition. New York, NY: Free Press, 2002.

Gonzalez, Guillermo, & Jay Wesley Richards. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in
the Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.,
2007.

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers Second Edition. New and Expanded Edition.
New York, NY: Readers Library, 2000.

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin On Trial. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Books, 2010.

Manson, Neil A., (ed). God and Design: the Teleological Argument and Modern Science.
London: Routledge, 2003.

Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence For Intelligent Design.
Reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2010.

Moreland, J. P., (ed). The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence For an Intelligent
Designer. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1994.

Rana, Fazale. The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008.



Atheist Perspective

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Mariner Books, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard. The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. New York,
NY: Free Press, 2011.

Dennett, Daniel C. Darwins Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York,
NY: Penguin, 2007.

Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton, 2005.
149

Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York, NY: Vintage, 2008.

Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New
York, NY: Free Press, 2011.

Hawking, Stephen, & Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York, NY: Bantam,
2010.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York,
NY: Twelve, 2009.

Stenger, Victor J. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not
Exist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008.

































BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner.
International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 (2007): 301-14.

Althouse, Peter. Eschatology. In Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, Edited by
Adam Stewart Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012.

Beilby, James K. Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What It Is And Why We Do It.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Blamires, Harry. The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? Vancouver:
Regent College Pub., 1963.

Boa, Kenneth D., & Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative
Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. Colorado Springs: Paternoster,
2006.

Bowdle, Donald. Informed Pentecostalism: An Alternative Paradigm. In The Spirit and
the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism. Edited by Terry L. Cross and
Emerson B. Powery. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000.

Clark, David K. Review of Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian
Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, by R.C. Sproul, John
Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29,
no. 3 (September 1986): 326-29.

. Dialogical Apologetics: a Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub. Group, 1999.

. Postmodern Evangelical Apologetics? In Alister E. McGrath & Evangelical
Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, Edited by Sung Wook Chung. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Clark, Kelly James, Richard Lints, and James K.A. Smith. 101 Key Terms in Philosophy
and Their Importance For Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox
Press, 2004.

. A Reformed Epistemologists Response (To Craig, Classical Apologetics).
In Five Views On Apologetics. Edited by Steven B Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000.

. Closing Remarks. In Five Views On Apologetics. Edited by Steven B Cowan.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2000.

Cowan, Steven B. Introduction, In Five Views on Apologetics, Counterpoints, Edited
1S1
by Stanley N. Gundry and Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2000.

Craig, William Lane. Closing Remarks. In Five Views on Apologetics, Counterpoints,
Edited by Stanley N. Gundry and Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2000.

, and J.P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2003.

. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3
rd
Edition.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

. Richard Dawkins on Arguments for God. In God is Good, God is Great: Why
Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible, Edited by William Lane Craig
and Chad Meister. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009.

Cross, Terry L. A Proposal to Break the Ice: What Can Pentecostal Theology Offer
Evangelical Theology? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (2002): 44-73.

. Answering the Call in the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of
Vocation, Work, and Life. Cleveland, TN: Lee University Press, 2007.

. Can There Be a Pentecostal Systematic Theology? An Essay on Theological
Method in a Postmodern World, Unpublished paper presented to the Theology
Interest Group, 30
th
Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies [2001].

. The Divine-Human Encounter: Towards a Pentecostal Theology of
Experience, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 31
(2009): 3-34.

. The Rich Feast of Theology: Can Pentecostals Bring the Main Course or Only
the Relish? Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000): 27-47.

Dabney, D. Lyle. Sauls Armor: The Problem and Promise of Pentecostal Theology
Today. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 23 (2001):
115-46.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996.

. The God Delusion. Boston: Mariner Books, 2008.

. Why Darwin Matters. The Guardian. 08 February 2008.
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1.

1S2
Dayton, Donald W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press. 2007.

DeWeese, Garrett J. Doing Philosophy as a Christian. Christian Worldview Integration
Series. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. South Bend: St.
Augustines Press, 2010.

Ganssle, Gregory E. Making the Gospel Connection: An Essay Concerning Applied
Apologetics. In Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics.
Edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic,
2012.

Geisler, Norman. S.v. Apologetics, Types of. In Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Gould, Stephen Jay. Nonoverlaping Magisteria. Natural History no. 106 (March 1997):
16-22. www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html.

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer On Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1996.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2011.

. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York:
W. W. Norton, 2005.

. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Vintage, 2008.

Haught, John F. God and the New Atheism: a Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and
Hitchens. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York:
Twelve, 2009.

Johns, Cheryl Bridges. Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among The Oppressed,
Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 2, Edited by John Christopher
Thomas, Rick D. Moore, and Steven J. Land. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998.

Johnson, Phillip E., and John Mark Reynolds. Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong
1SS
About the New Atheism. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010.

Kenneson, Philip D. Theres no Such Thing as Absolute Truth, and its a Good Thing
Too. In Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World. Edited by Timothy R.
Phillips and Dennis Okholm. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1995.

Koukl, Gregory. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

. Tactics: Applying Apologetics to Everyday Life. In To Everyone an Answer,
Edited by Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland. Downers
Grove: IVP Academic, 2004.

Kwan, Kia-Man. The Argument form Religious Experience. In The Blackwell
Companion to Natural Theology, Edited by William Lane Craig and J.P.
Moreland Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion For the Kingdom. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press,

Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock: Essays On Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1994.

Markos, Louis. Apologetics for the 21
st
Century. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.

McGrath, Alister. Evangelical Apologetics. Bibliotheca Sacra 155, no. 617 (Jan 1998):
3-10.

. Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2012.

. Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running On Empty?
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011.

McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Meister, Chad. God, Evil and Morality. God is Good, God is Great: Why Believing in
God is Reasonable and Responsible, Edited by William Lane Craig and Chad
Meister. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009

Moore, Rickie D. The Prophetic Calling: An Old Testament Profile and its Relevance
for Today, The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24
(2004): 16-29.

Moreland, J.P. Kingdom Triangle: Recovering the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul,
1S4
Restore the Spirits Power. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul.
Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997.

Nash, Ronald H. Faith and Reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2002.

Neumann, Peter D. Spirituality. In Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, Edited by
Adam Stewart Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012.

Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1994.

Olthuis, James H. On Worldviews. In Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science.
New York, NY: University Press of America, 1989.

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Chritsianity from its Cultural Captivity.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.

Phillips, Timothy R., and Dennis Okholm. Introduction In Christian Apologetics in the
Postmodern World. Edited by Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1995.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Raschke, Carl. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Reed, Baron. S.v. Certainty. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by
Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, 2009.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/#KinCer.

Reppert, Victor. Confronting Naturalism: The Argument from Reason, Contending
with Christianitys Critics: Answering the New Atheists and Other Objections.
Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009.

Richie, Tony. Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue.
Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2011.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Escape From Reason. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2006.

Sire, James W. A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books,
2006.
1SS

. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 4
th
Edition. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2004.

Skirry, Justin. S.v. Ren Descartes (1596-1650): Overview. In Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Edited by Jason Waller 13 September 2008
http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/

Smith, James K.A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation,
Cultural Liturgies, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

. Is The Universe Open For Surprise? Pentecostal Ontology and the Spirit of
Naturalism, Zygon 43, no. 4 (December 2008):

. The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational
Hermeneutic, 2
nd
Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.

. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2010.

. Whos Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to
Church, The Church and Postmodern Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2006.

Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley. Classical Apologetics: A Rational
Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

Stewart, Adam. Holiness Movement. In Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity. Edited
by Adam Stewart. Dekalb, IL: NIU Press, 2012.

Steup, Matthias. S.v. Epistemology. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter
2005 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.

Taylor, James E. S.v. The New Atheists. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 29
January 2010. http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/.

Thomas, John Christopher. Pentecostal Theology in the Twenty-First Century.
Presidential Address at the Society of Pentecostal Studies. Pneuma: The Journal
of the Society of Pentecostal Studies 26, no. 1 (Spring 1998):

Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics 2
nd
Edition, Edited by William Edgar.
Philipsburg: P&R Pub, 2003.

. The Defense of the Faith, Edited by K. Scott Oliphint. Philipsburg: P&R Pub.,
2008.
1S6

Walsh, Brian J. and Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian
World View. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

West, Greg. We dont need apologetics; we just need to experience Jesus. (blog) 30
November 2012, http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2012/11/we-
dont-need-apologetics-we-just-need-to-experience-jesus.html

Wolf, Gary. The Church of Non-Believers. Wired. November 2006.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Can Belief in God be Rational if it Has No Foundations? In
Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Edited by Alvin Plantinga and
Nicholas Wolterstorff. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1983.

Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of The Christian
Message. Atlanta, GA: W. Pub. Group, 2000.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen