He doesn’t. He does not want to believe.

Of course not. And that is the central issue of course.

My fear is that by conceding the intellectual ground, we can let the culture to redefine all of our important terms and leave ourselves in an incredibly difficult environment. This is largely what Francis Schaeffer is getting at in his books.

I’m not perhaps so worried about Dawkins, Harris, et al. I’m worried about those who have read them. I can easily imagine an average college student asking a pretty basic question to an evangelist, and then getting no real answer.

All that said, the key to evangelism is the Word. It is the power of God. My fear is that we don’t always know what the Word actually says–at least not enough to address our current culture.

I could say much more about this, but I’m going to try to hold off for a while. As a favorite teacher has said; “There is a wholesome economy of dogmatic assertion that is the mark of spiritual and emotional maturity.” I may have already overstepped the bounds of that advice.

Andrew, I’ve read a limited amount of Dawking, Harris, Hitchens, etc., but I’ve read much more from legal commentators who despise all things Christian. In one sense I agree with you; the slice of Christianity in which you and I grew up has not explained the Gospel well to “smart people.” But, as Becca, said, part of this is because it has adopted a worldview that isn’t conducive to learning. How much one can stretch that worldview in an attempt to reach “smart people” without that worldview shattering, I don’t know.

But, my broader is point is that despite follies in our slice of the Body, God has had no shortage of people explaining the Gospel. I don’t think the views of Dawkins et all have anything do with with a failure to explain the Gospel (although the Church should improve). Dawkins could find someone to explain the Truth to him on “his level” if he wanted to. (See, e.g., The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath). He doesn’t. He does not want to believe.

Nonetheless, from my limited perspective, it does seem like you’re aiming at a specific point and from a specific point, Camille. I could see how someone at BJU could think that you’re specifically trying to target their understanding of Scripture. Perhaps you are. And perhaps you’re right. But things can move slowly down there sometimes.

I wonder too if we’re not talking about slightly different things. That’s probably my fault. The thoughts in my original post came more from a discussion of evangelism at church than a consideration of various elements of sanctification. We don’t seem to understand the Gospel well, perhaps because we get caught up in particulars so much. And even if we think we understand the Gospel, we don’t seem to be communicating it well to the world around us. One of the principles of rhetoric that I have learned (I think) is that we often fail to communicate because we don’t really understand what we’re talking about.

Reading Hofstadter, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others like them has convinced me that we’re not making the Gospel very clear to the outside world and especially to smart people. But smart people need Jesus too.

My mere “rhetorical stance” is not quite accurate either. I am merely applying the apostle Paul, Augustine, John Murray, Louis Berkhof, the Heidelburg confession, the Westminster confession, etc. to a rhetorical theory. So I defer to their “well-thought-out” system (aka Reformed Theology). You, of course, wouldn’t expect me to have produced a systematic theology in my dissertation in the academic discipline of rhetoric. As to whether we are “reacting to perceived abuses” . . . I wrote that chapter (which I condensed in that post) nearly two years ago. And the whole thing started with our time at Indiana University and just was cemented with our daughter’s death. It’s been going on for over 10 years. So the actual time line doesn’t match up with that presumption.

If you have any questions, gentlemen, as I’ve said to Lincoln personally before, please ask us! It would be more productive and interesting to have these conversations together, I think. Grant and I are not dangerous or reprobate. Just a short time ago, we all sat around the same lunch tables and in the same conference rooms. Nothing’s changed except geography. We’re all in the Body!

I hope I didn’t give Camille’s argument more credit than I intended. I’m not so concerned about the particular rhetorical style or criticism–I’m not familiar enough with the various options. I am concerned about how we think about Christianity. I don’t mean to suggest that the Lewises (or anyone else) have thought about it entirely correctly. In fact, their recent arguments tend to suggest more of a rhetorical stance than a well-thought-out system. They are reacting to perceived abuses–always a dangerous stance.

As far as polemic goes…well…sometimes Camille reminds me of Hofstadter.

I caution you against Camille’s “Pentadic Analysis” and other such posts. I’ve read her blog and Grant’s blog closely the past few months. I won’t deny that much of what they write about grace is true–wonderfully true. Camille and Grant, however, have ignored, twisted, or explained away other key biblical truths. Their errors have left only partial truths and ungracious polemic.