Addressing Moral Objections to Christianity.

this session we re-think apologetics along these lines (soil management), explore the

implications, and discuss strategies and approaches for engaging these objections and turning

them into positive pointers to the gospel. This is an ‘apologetic’ for ethical apologetics.

show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it

attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.

Christian worldview. As a science, it requires mastering information and arguments. As an art, it

credibility filter in one’s mind that X must successfully pass through, before one can believe X (is

X true?). Apologetic strategies have traditionally focused on this level, providing evidence that

the gospel is true. But there is a prior filter in one’s mind that X must successfully pass through

before one will even entertain the question whether X is true (and thus, evidence that it is): the

plausibility filter (could X be true?). ‘Soil’ considerations primarily enter at this point: if one has

misconceptions about the gospel, faulty assumptions, experiences with bad Christians, absence

of good Christians, or some other issues that render Christianity unattractive or unthinkable,

one may simply write it off from consideration entirely (it couldn’t be true) and never seriously

consider evidence that it is true. Much of the apologetic task today involves plausibilizing the

moral agents, to a perfect moral agent who made us, who reveals his character and will to us in

these ways, and who holds us responsible to live up to them. The best explanation of a moral

order is that there is a Moral Orderer – it’s difficult or impossible to explain this pervasive and

(GTB). In classical Christianity, God is the GTB, the ultimate ground and source of all cognitive,

moral, and aesthetic value. It is both appropriate and effective for us to appeal to

considerations of GTB in pointing to God. He is the ultimate ground of goodness, truth, and

beauty, he is their origin, and he is to be worshipped as such. Pointing to the unity of GTB in

God is a fruitful way to see the apologetics enterprise in a unified way.

theistic belief represent one expression of that, but fall short as persuasive apologetics. Where

the moral evidence for God is most important is prior to argument: it is seen, rather than heard.

We not only want to be able to make sense of our experience of moral value and long for a

and compelling, and moral objections to the gospel (Christian lives and community that is not

good) are devastating.

moral pointers are perhaps the most crucial soil-softening factors. So just as in positive

apologetics we need to think about moral evidence, in the broadest sense, so we need to take

both positive and negative: the positive task is pointing to goodness of God in strategic and

typically embodied ways, softening the soil and planting seeds. The negative task is clearing

but engagement. Don’t win the battle and lose the war. Since the issue is goodness, and it must

be seen, how we deal with the person is as important as what we say.

do you mean? How do you know that? What do you think follows from that? Before seeking to

answer an objection it is important to get clear – and help the objector get clear – about what it

actually is. Sometimes an objection is little more than a slogan or throwaway objection that the

objector has heard but not really thought about or evaluated. Or there may be a more specific,

maybe even a deeply personal problem that the objector has in mind, which you will miss if you

just charge in to answer it. (For example, if she brings up the 'problem of evil', it is important to

ask what it is that she sees as a problem here. It may turn out that she has suffered a recent

tragedy, which requires a much different, more pastoral response than if she has just taken a

philosophy class that talked about the 'logical' problem of evil.)

e.g. that Christians burned millions of witches or opposed science. What do you mean by

because they lie under the surface, unexamined, it flounders. They are typically vague and

able to set the discussion within the right context. What do you think follows from this (e.g. the

hypocrisy of Christians)? Why do you think that?

moral objections to Christian attitudes and behavior in history. We need to be humble enough

to follow the evidence where it leads, and to acknowledge the problems that there are. Only

then can we set it in a proper context.

rather than as an argument or disagreement. Frame it in terms of fundamental worldview

issues: What do you think this (e.g. bad human behavior) tells us about reality? What does this

say about the human condition? Do you think Christians are alone in this, or is it a universal part

of the human condition? What should we look for in a diagnosis and prescription for this

this area comes in. Fortunately there are increasing resources to draw upon.

crucial that the objector realizes that not simply Christianity is on trial, so that if it has a

problem we can simply reject it and the quest is over. We have to see whether alternative

explanation that makes the best sense of the data, with the fewest difficulties. The objector, no

less than the Christian, has to give an account of moral reality and the human condition. Moral

penetrating questions, which pushed Job to see things differently. Moral considerations are

both theoretical and deeply personal, and lie very close to the heart of the gospel. We should

implications for themselves – often, again, by asking questions. Often, lying behind the

objection there is a kind of contradiction or inconsistency in the objector’s moral perspective.

As a relativist, on what basis do you criticize Christian behavior? Why do you say repression is

are ‘signals of transcendence’ (Berger). Turn the negative apologetic of response into a positive

apologetic pointer to the gospel. The fundamental moral issues that give rise to the moral

human beings in general behave so badly. How do we understand that? Which perspective has

the resources to account for it, explain it, and provide a finally satisfying solution to it? The

moral concerns that underlie moral objections are all closely related in some way to some core

element of the gospel or the general shape of the Christian worldview (see appendix:

introduce Jesus’ view on this: have you considered what Jesus thought about this? (What do

you think was Jesus’ view of hypocrisy? Let’s look at it). Typically Jesus himself addressed and

condemned the very behavior objected to, so that ‘Christians’ who act this way are acting

contrary to the gospel.

Questions About Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books

HarperCollins