Bahnsen's Basic Training for Defending the Faith, Part I: The Myth of Neutrality
Have you ever heard someone say that Christianity is a biased faith, while non-Christians are capable of neutrality? This is a persistent myth that often accompanies discussions about social, ethical, and religious issues. Christians are not allowed to use God's Word, we are told, for this is biased. We are permitted appeals to fallen, sinful, fallible minds based on "reason," but do not expect anyone to accept the authority of God's Word or our "nonrational" faith.Dr. Greg Bahnsen, a fine Christian presuppositional apologist and perhaps the premier Christian debater of the 20th century, ably refutes this myth in his various writings and presentations. He is now deceased, but his legacy of prodigious learning and Christian thinking abides with us in his tapes, books, and articles. One of my first introductions to Dr. Bahnsen was during the 2003 VF internship when Doug Phillips gave each of us interns a copy of Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, published by Covenant Media Press. I still remember Bahnsen's chapters on neutrality in which he points out the impossibility, the immorality, and the robbery of "neutrality." This entire book greatly impacted me, and I highly recommend it above any other introductory book on Christian apologetics.
One of my good friends, who happens to be a consistent contributor on this blog with his comments, sent me a DVD set produced this year by American Vision. It contains five taped lectures from Bahnsen that he delivered before a group of college students in 1991. Basic Training for Defending the Faith is an invaluable resource and a wonderful supplement to Bahnsen's Always Ready. From what I have seen of it so far, although the film quality is somewhat substandard, I highly recommend the set.
In his first presentation, The Myth of Neutrality, Dr. Bahnsen puts to rest this notion that Christians are biased, while others are truly objective. He presents two very basic yet profound statements that run contrary to much of modern Christian apologetics: First, they are not neutral. Secondly, we should not even try to be neutral. University professors, fellow students, and other humanists on campus, Bahnsen warned, will press believers to set aside "religious" notions and approach subjects from a "rational" or "scientific" point of view.
Many Christians buy into this notion of neutrality and present "intelligent design" arguments in the natural sciences or "natural law" arguments in politcal science. If we don't mention God, it is held, even as we present ideas consistent with creationism and the Bible, we can demonstrate the truth of special creation and absolute law without offending the unbeliever's opposition to the Bible. So goes the erroneous thinking. As Bahnsen helps us understand, unless we acknowledge Christ and His Word as the sole and absolute standard in every area, we allow humanists with their autonomous reasoning to define the standard. While Bahnsen did not draw these specific applications about ID and "natural law" in his lecture, he certainly denounced efforts to set aside God's Word in favor of neutrality in any endeavor.
Bahnsen encourages us to resist the intellectual bullying we will inevitably encounter and to avoid returning bullying. We will not glorify God or win favor with our adversaries if we start bullying, even if our opponents try to bully us into subjection. We must learn genuine humility and refrain from "winning the argument" by introducing concepts or using terminology that our opponents do not understand. If they try this tactic on us, we should acknowledge that we are unfamiliar with their concepts or terminology and ask them for clarification. Finally, we should realize that the world, including college professors, will have double standards. Such professors demonstrate that neutrality is impossible as they selectively emphasize or silence ideas according to their personal preferences, beliefs, and priorities.
Bahnsen references an abundance of Scripture, including passages from Ephesians 4, John 17, Matthew 6, Proverbs 1, Colossians 2, I Corinthians 1, Acts 26, and I Timothy 6. Among his important points were the following:
- Humanists are not open-minded thinkers who wish to discover the truth wherever it may be found. Rather, they are hostile to goodness, holiness, and truth. They are vain in their minds.
- Christ is the source of all truth and righteousness. He alone possesses the key to wisdom, so we will fail in any endeavor that refuses to acknowledge His Lordship.
- God wants us to be consecrated, holy, and set apart to Him. We cannot do this if we embrace neutrality, which compromises our standing before Him.
- Neutrality will rob us of our ability to gain knowledge and wisdom. We must fear the Lord in order to have wisdom. The unbeliever should live in dread of God; it is supremely irrational for an unbeliever to live without fearing God's judgment upon their rebellion and pretended autonomy. If we embrace neutrality, we rob ourselves of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ.
- We should recognize that people opposed to Christian truth and ideas do not merely oppose particular viewpoints. They oppose the whole worldview of Christianity and propose a warring alternative to God's Word.
- We are not forbidden from studying philosophy. We are merely cautioned to guard ourselves and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Just as we should be cautious when driving, swimming, or using fire, we should be cautious when studying false ideas and philosophies. We need not refrain from driving, swimming, or using fire, and we need not refrain from learning about opposing ideas. We must exercise great care to avoid being taken captive with vanity and deceit.
- The world looks down on the Gospel and God's system of truth. What God calls wise they call foolish, and vice versa. They do not struggle with the facts but rather with the presuppositions and system of truth that God presents in Scripture.
- We should reject so-called "wisdom" and "knowledge" that runs contrary to God's Truth. Everyone has a system of presuppositions and a notion about truth called a worldview, and we should evaluate the ideas we hear in terms of their adherence to Scripture.
These are just some restatments of high points that stuck out to me in the presentation. I cannot do justice to the whole thing, so I recommend getting the series of DVDs and Bahnsen's book Always Ready. And stay tuned for a summary of Part II, entitled Introduction to Worldviews.
posted by C.S. Hayden @ 7:00 PM
6 Comments:
Caleb,
That set is one of very few video message recorded with Dr. Greg Bahsen before he died in the mid-90's.
Gary DeMar recorded the message way back before Dr. Bahnsen's surgery. I'm grateful that in the providence of God, that message was preserved. It would have been an honor to have met Dr. Bahnsen.
Nathaniel
Thanks for the background info, Darnell. I had read about this set when it first came out and recall that it was one of the only filmed recordings of Bahnsen. I just watched the third lecture and have been enjoying it. It's a good refresher for a lot of what I have already read.
And I agree with you that it would have been great to have met Bahnsen -- and Van Til and Rushdoony and many others, for that matter. Thanks again for the comment and for your generosity in sending the set.
Hi Caleb --
What a lot of meat in this post! I can't do a full in depth response but I'd like to at least touch on a couple of points:
1) "Humanists are not open-minded thinkers who wish to discover the truth wherever it may be found. Rather, they are hostile to goodness, holiness, and truth. They are vain in their minds."
I am sure a lot of individual humanists are "vain in their minds" -- as are a lot of Christian theologians. Intellectual arrogance is, unfortunately, part of the human condition and something we should all try to fight in our ourselves. Humanism is NOT, however, inherently a philosophy of intellectual vanity. One of its primary values (via our beloved Socrates, who claimed to know nothing) is the notion of questioning one's assumptions and identifying what one DOESN'T know. As a humanist, it's not that I presume to know more than God. I just don't presume to know God at all. How can I? Those who claim to know God's will strike me as far more presumptuous than a person who says she doesn't know whether God exists.
2) Are non-Christians capable of neutrality? Of course not, and I doubt anyone is claiming that true neutrality is really possible. I can assure you that the impossibility of achieving pure neutrality was recognized on a daily basis during my secular humanist education. In journalism class, we discussed the fact that reporters have to make relevancy determinations as to which facts to report. In history class, we examined the biases in primary sources and in historical research. In science class, we looked at biases (including patriarchal biases!) in scientific studies.
I also think that it's a mistake to assume that humanists exalt the notion of neutrality above all else. If we had to be neutral all the time, we could never make value judgments!
The difference between Christians like you and humanists is that humanists view it as worthwhile to aspire to neutrality during the search for truth. We don't just reject the value of neutrality out of hand. We don't say, hey since true neutrality is impossible we might as well just accept a source like the Bible as the absolute arbiter of truth without examining it critically or questioning it.
3) "The unbeliever should live in dread of God; it is supremely irrational for an unbeliever to live without fearing God's judgment upon their rebellion and pretended autonomy."
Why do you assume that the unbeliever is in "rebellion" ? How can an HONEST lack of belief be considered "rebellion" ?
4) I am glad you touched on the issue of philosophy as an appropriate course of study.
I have a post in the hopper about why it is more important now than ever for Americans to study philosophy. Of course, like a doofus, I majored in "comparative religion" and only took a smattering of philosophy classes. I could just kick myself.
HF, thanks for the comment. I will address each of your statements with the same numbering scheme that you employed:
1) By "vain in their minds," I refer to the biblical statement about the vanity of all unbelieving thought. Surely you are correct to say that some Christian theologians are also "vain," but I am not defining "vanity" in precisely the same way as you seem to think of it. I will quote a portion of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. Although you do not acknowledge its truthfulness, it will help you see where I am coming from: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations [reasoning], and their foolish heart was darkened" (Romans 1:21). Unless we acknowledge the epistemological debt we creatures owe to our Creator -- unless we are grateful for His Divine sustenance and benefits -- we will embrace an empty and foolish worldview. In short, there is no neutrality when it comes to God. We cannot pursue an open-minded viewpoint and strive for neutrality in evaluating His existence and nature. Otherwise, we will set up another standard in our thinking and arrive at flawed truth claims. For the Christian, unless God reigns supreme in every endeavor, including our epistemological questionings, there is no way, in principle, to arrive at truth. As I will mention in my notes about Bahnsen's third lecture, unbelievers certainly can and do arrive at truth. However, in such instances they are being inconsistent and borrowing from the Christian wordview. (I cannot prove this with an appeal to science or your supposedly autonomous reasoning, but as Dr. Bahnsen states, these things are true because of the impossibility of the contrary. He calls this the "transcendental argument for God's existence." More on this later, Lord willing.)
2) Can you see the contradiction in stating, on the one hand, ". . . I doubt that anyone is claiming that true neutrality is possible" but on the other hand, ". . .humanists view it worthwhile to aspire to neutrality during the search for truth." Here is the problem: Everyone makes assumptions as they approach scientific, political, economic, legal, religious, and other issues. The Christian (the presuppositionalist, at least) is very blunt and sometimes even obnoxious about his/her assumptions: God is the sovereign Creator and Lawgiver; His Word is absolutely true and reliable; Scripture alone dictates how we approach a subject. The humanists says this, "Hold on a minute! Let me be the judge of that. I have set aside all my preconceived notions, so why aren't you willing to do this same?" The Christian has two options at this point: 1) remain faithful to his/her presuppositions and reject this impossible notion of neutrality; 2) set aside God's Word and use scientific, (supposedly) rational, and other evidential appeals. If the Christian pursues the second option, the humanist wins. Your goal, after all, is to coax away from God's Word so that we "determine for ourselves the standard and definition of good and evil, truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness." This is the same appeal the tempter made to Eve in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3). If you truly think "neutrality" is possible, why must we embrace your mind and reasoning as supreme? Why must we accept your preconceived notions about the universe? Why not mine? Why not Buddha's? Because I believe neutrality is impossible, I think it would be dangerous and foolish to pursue it. I would be lying to you and to myself to say that God's Word is not the standard and that man, on his own, can come to the truth. I would set aside my commitment to Christ, present a flawed testimony before the world, and ultimately fail in my endeavor to discern and know truth.
3) God says it clearly in Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." The Apostle Paul makes a seemingly impossible statement, "The invisible things . . . are clearly seen . . ." Here is the point: You should understand His existence and character (invisible things) "by the things that are made." You are aware, deep down, of His "eternal power and Godhead." Therefore, according to Paul, you are without excuse. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," says Hebrews 11. Therefore, you must have faith -- a faith that is grounded in the reality that God has revealed Himself in creation, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in His Word. You are not being "HONEST" if you reject God. You are trying to live in a supremely foolish lie. I would apologize for such strong language, but God's Word is even stronger so I do not feel the need to apologize. Again, more on these things later.
4) HF, we both agree on the need to learn and study. In principle, I think we both agree on the importance of consistent, "epistemologically self-conscious" thinking (knowing what we believe, why we believe it, how it affects our thinking, lives, and relationships, and finally being consistent with our ideas in how we live.) However, I do not believe any other worldview besides Christianity can account for certainty and truth, ethics, the nature of our fallen yet created world, the existence of particularity (distinction) and universality (unity), and a host of other philosophical and religiously oriented matters. We will have more to say about these things in the future, I am sure.
Thanks again for the comment, and I hope you see this discussion as I see it: A serious dialog about philosophical and religious issues that will affect our temporal and eternal destinies. It is high time to set aside human autonomy and pretended neutrality and to simply come clean in your awareness of God's presence, His mercy in preserving you, and the impending judgment that draws nigh if you continue in your sin. Christ is the only answer, as you have heard before, and you can come to Him right now if, by His Spirit, He will draw you and have you as one of His own.
In #2 towards the end, I should have stated the following: "If you truly think 'neutrality' is a worthy goal to pursue..." I wrote, "If you truly think neutrality is possible..." when of course you stated it wasn't. I just wanted to clarify that.
Apologies for my lack of response, when you've been nice enough to write in such detail! Too much blogging to do to little time! I'm looking forward to chewing through all this and will probably link to this discussion on my blog as well. Meanwhile, cheers and happy New Year!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home