The Dawn Treader

It is fluid and dynamic. You need to choose the right strategy, employ the right tactic, choose the right club, and make the right swing. Those choices will look different in every circumstance, because people's worldview, emotional baggage, knowledge and relationship to you will look different every time. There is one HUGE difference between golf and apologetics. On the golf course, you do not have the Holy Spirit to correct your flubs and worm burners. In apologetics, the Holy Spirit plays a huge role in making use of our bumbling, stumbling attempts to defend the Christian faith.

Though my golf analogy is somewhat weak, it accurately describes how I approach engaging unbelievers in an apologetic discussion.

I pray, assess the lay of the land, make a decision, and go with it.

I view presuppositional apologetics as one very important club in the bag. For those of you who are well studied in apologetics, I am closer to a Francis Schaeffer, John Frame and Nancy Pearcy than I am a Cornelius Van Til or a Greg Bahnsen. But I respect Van Til and Bahnsen tremendously.

Here is what I think the strengths of the presup approach are.

One, it takes worldview seriously. It acknowledges that worldviews are the binoculars that we all look through to see and understand reality. Binoculars are great at zooming in on things, but you have lousy peripheral vision. My point is, people truly are blind to evidences for God's existence because of their worldview. Debating evidences with an atheist can be one of the most exasperating experiences imaginable. The presups openly recognize that the problem is not lack of evidence; it is worldview. Unbelievers do not need more evidence; they need a worldview transplant. The presups are right.

Two, presups claim that evidentialists are giving away the farm by debating evidences with unbelievers. You are playing on their turf. In reality, we all are presuppositional because we all argue based on our presuppositions. We cannot NOT do this; therefore, we are all honorary presups whether we admit it or not. Given this truth, why play on the turf of the opponent? Meaning, if evidence is not really the issue (and according to Rom 1, it is not), then why pretend like it is (i.e. show me enuf evidence and I will finally believe)? I cannot argue with that. The presups are right.

Three, presups expose the myth of neutrality. There is a myth out there that one can actually step outside of his or her presuppositions to take an objective look at reality. This myth does not take the Fall seriously though. Is it really possible to look at evidence impartially and without any bias? Doesn't our fallen nature affect our minds and wills to the point that we cannot take an unbiased look at evidence? Can we really step outside our presuppositions and get a "God's eye view"? Nope. No way. We cannot. The presups are right.

Four, presups know how to play offense. They are the ultimate Columbo apologists. They know how to put the opponent's worldview under the reality microscope and examine it. Sometimes, we need to play offense and not assume the burden of proof.

Here are the main problems I experience with using the presup approach.

The first is pragmatic. Without a doubt, this is the most sophisticated, most difficult apologetic approach I have ever studied. For the average person in the pew, this approach is so beyond their intellectual reach that it will never become broadly utilized.

Two, it is not a very engaging approach. You can easily come across as prickly, dis-interested, academic and a know-it-all. It seems that you are not really listening to the questions your skeptical friend is asking. These are style issues, obviously. But this apologetic approach does not lend itself well to winsome, relational apologetics.

Three, this approach views true knowledge as a circle. To get a correct view of the world, you have to be in the circle. But how do you get in the circle? A circle does not have an "on-ramp". The only way in is to be plunked in. In theological terms, you must be regenerated before you can really get it. But the Holy Spirit is the only one who can regenerate people, so where does this leave the apologist? Most of the time, only talking to other Christians. Have you ever noticed how few presup apologists are really out there engaging in the marketplace of ideas with non-Christians? Most of the time, it seems that presups are debating other Christian apologists instead of engaging in apologetics with a lost and dying world. I think this is because of the circle concept of knowledge. First, they are generally not good at talking to anyone outside of the circle. Second, they don't see the point of "building bridges"; that is, there is no common ground to build a bridge on.

Fourth, the presup argument sounds circular (in logic terms, it sounds like the fallacy of begging the question). Dr. Ken Boa, in his excellent book Faith Has Its Reasons, claims that this is not true. Boa is a teacher in the Centurions program and an outstanding thinker and logician. I had lunch with him in March and we chatted about this topic. If he says it is not circular, I believe it. The problem is, I cannot get it through my thick skull how it is not. I keep re-reading his book but I can't get it. I am sure this is my problem and not his. I will keep trying.(postscript: after writing this, I went back and re-read Boa. I think I got it this time. If you want to know the answer, post a comment ;-) ).

Conclusion: the presup approach is a great club to have in the bag. I like to pull it out and use it when I think it is the best option. And when exactly is that? It is when my unbelieving friend is highly intellectual and very hardened against Christianity. In golf terms, this is when you have a hard-pan lie, you are 200 yards out, and the wind is in your face. Take the club back easy, keep your balance, trust your swing, and pray like crazy.