Friday, August 26, 2016


I watched an intriguing debate yesterday which was held at Bowling Green University. The topic was abortion, and the participants were a man named James Croft and Scott Klusendorf. Croft is a brilliant British humanist/ethicist with a Cambridge/Harvard educational background. Klusendorf is the writer of A Case For Life (which I highly commend to you), a graduate of UCLA and Biola University, and one of the best apologists for a pro-life position.

I really, really encourage you to watch the debate for two reasons.

First, the issues of life are discussed in great detail. Personhood, which is the crux of any argument dealing with abortion is approached from two angles by men attempting to maintain civility and focused positions based on science, logic, and philosophy. Many analogies are given to attempt to bring clarity to the subject matter, which are helpful as we think through the abortion debate. However, as with all analogies and illustrations, they usually break down at some point. Errors and assumptions are pointed out between the presenters that can help you and I not to make the same ones. Viewing it from outside will also help you see places that a position for life can be solidified by paying attention to the actual arguments and not the emotional words, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and illogical conclusions. Additionally, we are able to be enlightened to the opposing position's thoughts and logic. Understanding is good, it helps us stay on target with the actual issue. This debate also points out related issues, such as women's rights, government overreach, and others.

Secondly, and the main reason I wrote this piece, you should watch this debate because it will equip you apologetically. You may say that much of it would be "over my head" because of the caliber of these men and their arguments. This is not a reason, but an excuse, and willful ignorance. Remember that this debate was before an audience of 18-22 year old college students. My conviction is that the church, by and large, is very unequipped to argue for crucial positions of ethics, morality, government, and theology (even though this debate avoided theology intentionally). One of the reasons that we are losing a cultural war is that we are leaving the apologetics up to a few rather than accepting the responsibility to be apologists for the faith and related issues. Peter articulates this responsibility in 1 Peter 3:15 (although I realize that the call to be defenders of faith in context usually deals with our faith).

So don't duck the Jehovah's Witnesses at your door because they might ask you questions you don't know answers to. Don't avoid the topic of abortion because the shame of the lack of understanding. Don't cower in fear when someone brings up the subject of creation and evolution. Don't flee from a person challenging your trust in the bible. Research, think, speak carefully, convince others of truth.

This does not mean that we all must become great apologists, just that must be willing to learn, and purpose to do so. The evidence is there. Science does not refute our positions as evangelical, bible-believing Christians. Nor does archaeology, history, philosophy, or logic. If we have truth, it is perfectly reasonable, in fact, necessary that we investigate, even question it. The temporary result may be that you must ask for time to research a question, but there is no shame in that (if there is, it may be a pride issue within your own heart); you have not lost. You may be ridiculed, but if they did it to Jesus, we should expect no less, John 15:18. Do as the apostles, and rejoice that you are counted worthy suffer rejection, Acts 5:41. Take courage, you can do this. Start with this video.

No comments:

Post a Comment