Point: Some Christians engage in apologetics in a piecemeal fashion. They give evidence here and there. They refute an objection here and there. They don’t see the importance of Presuppositional apologetics’ emphasis of going beyond the individual point and pursuing refutations at the level of worldviews.
Picture: Earlier this year I read a book on counter-terrorism titled Counterstrike by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker. There was a conversation in the book that really stayed with me in terms of the FBI’s post-9/11 change of strategy against terrorism. Instead of going after an individual they were now going after networks. Here’s an excerpt from page 38 and 39:
By 2003, some counterterrorism experts within the FBI began challenging whether disruption alone was the best strategy to combat terrorists. ‘What we began to realize pretty rapidly was that there was a lot at stake when you disrupt somebody and you really don’t have a clear picture of what their involvement is or what the network is,’ said Arthur M. Cummings II, a top FBI counterterrorism official.
Cummings, a stocky former NAVY SEAL, worried that while arresting a suspected or known terrorist would remove that particular threat, it might also leave authorities blind to a larger terrorist network and its ongoing operation.…
Before 9/11, the FBI focused on the individual and building a case against him. ‘If you take that paradigm and you completely turn it around, and you take a saw and buzz around his head and peer in, that is your new objective,’ Cummings said. ‘I don’t care about the man. Ramzi Yousef is of no interest to me except that he is a means to my understanding of the broader network.…
For Cummings and a growing cadre of counterterrorism specialists in the bureau, teasing out the contours of a potential terrorist network became more important than making an immediate arrest.
In the war on terror it is not enough to arrest one terrorist. Instead the metric of success for law enforcement is the eradication of the network that an individual terrorist is a part of. Similarly in the war on error worldviews are networks of beliefs. Networks of beliefs that are the presuppositions in which attacks against Christianity are constructed and when one encounters a lone objection sometimes its important to expose and refute the worldview the objection is embedded in.
POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR EMPLOYING THIS ILLUSTRATION DURING APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
OPPONENT: I don’t like fashion you go about in answering my objection. You make it a bigger issue than it is.
CHRISTIAN: But your objection is not done in a vacuum. They are launched from a particular worldview, hence my methodology of exposing and refuting your presuppositions. You don’t like it?
OPPONENT: No.
CHRISTIAN: If I may give an analogy of what I’m trying to do. Do you know how the FBI pursue their counter-terrorism strategy? <INSERT ILLUSTRATION.> Now, is the goal eradicating the individual terrorist or the larger web of a terrorist network? Which do you think is more meaningful in the long term?
OPPONENT: The network.
CHRISTIAN: Similarly in the war on error worldviews are networks of beliefs. Networks of beliefs that are the presuppositions in which attacks against Christianity are constructed and when one encounters a lone objection sometimes its important to expose and refute the worldview the objection is embedded in. Let’s get back to the issue at hand.
Opposing world views can’t coexist when one view believes the destruction of the other is a mandate from God. I also, can’t help but consider how believing in Jesus completely, changed my world-view. It took time but He changed almost every concept I held before I accepted Him as Savior.
You said: “I also, can’t help but consider how believing in Jesus completely, changed my world-view. It took time but He changed almost every concept I held before I accepted Him as Savior.”
What a powerful point. My greatest joy in being a pastor is seeing God transforming and renewing people’s mind. If I have to pay to be a pastor o see God’s Word do it’s work, I would.
Amen.:0)
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks for reblogging this!
You’re very welcome Pastor Jim!
“They don’t see the importance of Presuppositional apologetics’ emphasis of going beyond the individual point and pursuing refutations at the level of worldviews.”
I am not wishing to argue, but present an alternative explanation. I don’t know if it so much comes down to the importance or non-importance of Presuppositional apologetics as it does about concern for the argument. Take me, for example. I remember how ridiculous my arguments were before my solid walk with Jesus…they were arguments for the sake of arguing. As I have grown in my walk with the Lord, I live by faith that God uses the foolish to confound the wise by and through the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Truth be known, the Holy Spirit is left out of most debates. As such, most arguments are just that…arguments. However, when the Holy Spirit is in complete control of the argument, as in the cases presented throughout the New Testament, hearts will be changed. That is when we will see the King Agrippa’s saying “You have almost persuaded me…”
In short, most debates are not Christ based, but ego based. And, when a person must employ pre-planned illustrations to achieve an upper hand in an argument, then there is the greatest of possibilities that the Lord was not involved in the argument to begin with.
With that out of the way, you are most correct with Christian’s engaging in apologetics in a piece-meal fashion. Truth be known, many (and I dare say most) engage in God’s Word, as a whole, in a piece-meal fashion…picking and choosing what suits their needs at the moment. Be blessed and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
Hey brother. I don’t discount what you are saying in total. The illustration was in light of some specific conversations I was thinking of that was concerning why is it that Presuppositional apologetics seems to be so indirect and often deal with surrounding issues concerning how one deal with an objection. My hope is that the illustration would not be employed to achieve a one-up-manship during a debate against an opponent. Just simply an analogy to explain what I or someone else engaging in presuppositional apologetics want to consider the larger web of a person’s belief surrounding an issue, both of the person I’m talking to and my own Christian worldview. I don’t think the above illustration really is one to refute someone as wrong per se, but more an illustration of a methodological consideration. We must not engage the Word in a piece-meal fashion of pick and choose what one wants so I see by implication the importance of bringing a fully orbed Biblical beliefs directly or as one’s starting point as applied to all issues and objection.
Do have a wonderful Thanksgiving Patrick!
One thing about some of the material you post is that it helps in other areas. For instance, this post actually helps me formulate plans for addressing city council with some budgetary issues. Good job! 🙂 You have a wonderful Thanksgiving too, my friend.
Good stuff Brother Jim. Or course all your stuff teaches me something, so it’s all good to me.
What you have said there sounds like stuff I have heard Ravi Zacharias teach, about honing in on the world view rather than arguing the detailed points.
I don’t really think of myself as an apologist, though. Although it seems people keep dragging me into it LOL. I really came here to just write my thoughts and teach some stuff, and perhaps reach some willing hearts and minds. I really had no plans to engage the militant atheist worldview. Of course, I guess I really didn’t know how bad it really was out there. Some of what I have seen has really shocked me to the core to tell the truth.
But my focus has shifted definitely from arguing fine points, as that is just a waste of time. As likely as not, I will probably just present the Gospel, my experience with it, and all from the position that it is all simply true, rather than trying to prove it true.I will leave that to you degreed people!
I appreciate your blog posts actually, I think they have a God-centered evangelistic thrust but there’s definitely an apologetics’ flavor of sorts to them. Same with James’ post. I’ve grown to appreciate more “soft” apologetics, and not always the detailed slice and dice.
Ah…good word..”soft” apologetics. Very appropriate. But, you know, all of the different facets of what is in the blog world are necessary. All part of the body and all of that. We all bring to the table the gifts and talents God gave us, and they are all different. Somebody has to do the detailed slice and dice, and better you than me! 🙂
I concur with Wally. I like both yours and Wally’s posts because ya’ll present material that makes me pause and say, “Hmmmmm.”
That was very kind Patrick, thank you.
Thank you for your kind words Patrick
[…] GO TO PART 29 […]
[…] 3.) Apologetic Sermon Illustration #29: FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and i… […]
[…] GO TO PART 29 […]
[…] FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and importance of refuting worldviews […]
[…] FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and importance of refuting worldviews […]
I’m really impressed together with how many apologetics’ illustration you come up with and how interesting they are.
[…] FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and importance of refuting worldviews […]
[…] FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and importance of refuting worldviews […]
[…] FBI going after terrorist network and not just individuals and importance of refuting worldviews […]