Apologetics and Unbelief: What Happens When They Meet
By Shafer Parker
Suppose the CEO of the Coca-Cola company put out a memo to his employees stating emphatically that water and Coca-Cola “concentrate” (the product the company sells to bottlers worldwide) should never meet. Since a mixture of concentrate and filtered water is the only way to make the famous soft drink, you would likely not be surprised to hear that said memo led to an emergency board meeting followed by the CEO’s immediate ouster—or hospitalization.
The previous paragraph is entirely hypothetical, but what follows is real, though no less inexplicable. On May 7 the headline for Sentinel Apologetics founder Robert Rowe’s blog read: “Christianity and Apologetics: Why They Should Never Meet.” I confess, when I first read the headline I thought he had to be joking, or else setting up an ironic twist to make the vital point that Christianity and apologetics must meet, that they are interdependent the same way that nuclear bombs are interdependent with the rockets that deliver them.
But no, a perusal of the article revealed Rowe was not joking, that his headline meant what it said. Here is his opening sally:
This might come as a surprise to most Christians, but I don’t think Christians should engage in “apologetics”. Though I and [frequent co-author] Hunter [Bailey] run Sentinel Apologetics (because that sounds quite ironic/hypocritical), our goal is the scientific method, and not “gotcha” games.
Do you see what he’s getting at? You don’t? Then Join the club. But one thing does come through loud and clear. Rowe really does not believe in apologetics. “I find it quite curious,” he writes, “that nowhere in the bible (sic) is evangelism defined via ‘apologia’. Did Jesus (or anyone else) use ‘apologia’ when it came to preaching the gospel? Did Jesus say: ‘go into all the world and use apologetics’?”
“[Rowe] rejects apologetics because he believes in science, and when someone points out that Scripture rejects one or another of the findings of the current scientific consensus it feels to him like a ‘gotcha.”
As you read further, however, Rowe’s real point becomes clear. He rejects apologetics because he believes in science, and when someone points out that Scripture rejects one or another of the findings of the current scientific consensus it feels to him like a “gotcha.” Rowe is a theistic evolutionist, by definition someone who presents as a Christian, but rejects all varieties of special creation and holds that God allowed evolution to bring about the multiplicity of life forms living today on planet earth.
Theistic evolutionists say they believe in God, but they also believe, like all Darwinists, in natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms by which single-celled animals became multi-cellular and early hominids became human. In other words, they believe that apart from supplying the raw materials God had nothing to do with the beginning of life or its development. And as a theistic evolutionist, Rowe believes all this even though it is specifically contradicted by Scripture (Acts 17:24-26). Why? Because whenever push comes to shove, he rejects revelation in favour of the scientific method. No wonder he rejects apologetics. He worships the Spirit of the Age and has no desire to defend the Bible or its teachings. A quick glance at his website and YouTube channel reveals his willingness to explain Scripture. But defend it? Not when it is contradicted by science.
Here is Rowe’s view of the Bible taken straight from his anti-apologetics blog:
The bible (sic) is not a monolithic book, but a collection of books. It’s also an entirely human work. So, how does God fit in that? Well, that’s what makes it so impressive (and hair-raising). The providential message embedded in the text (once you go through the details with a fine-tooth comb), is universally applicable. It’s as if the human authors had omniscient knowledge about the depths of human anthropology.
To summarize, according to Rowe the Bible is not a coherent message from God but a random collection of uninspired human works that nevertheless manage to display something akin to a divine understanding of humanity’s strengths and weaknesses, but only when you comb through it to eliminate anything that doesn’t fit with the current state of the sciences, including physics, biology, psychology and sociology. His last sentence is little more than a sop to the religious sentiments of his readers. His “it’s as if” is a clear indication he does not really believe the Bible displays any meaningful form of “omniscient knowledge.” Finally, notice that even where he speaks of “omniscient knowledge” he limits it to “the depths of human anthropology.” For Rowe it just would not do to allow the Bible any say about origins or the nature of the creator God.
The funny thing is, like many theistic evolutionists Rowe believes in the resurrection. In another blog (written with Hunter Bailey) on “The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” he gives about as good an apologetic as you’re going to get from anything shorter than a full-length book. He even presents new information that I, at least, had not seen before. Given blogging’s built-in preference for short form writing I consider it a tour de force, and impossible to refute.
Yet even when Rowe is defending something as central to the Faith as our Lord’s resurrection his handling of Scripture telegraphs his fundamental unbelief. For him, Scripture is a data point in favour of his general thesis that the resurrection did take place, but only because it is backed up by other data points from outside the Bible.
At the end of his otherwise excellent article Rowe can claim no more than this, that the apostles “had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.” The advantage to this approach, he says, is that it meets the “critics on their own (common) grounds, using their presuppositions and their methodology.” This is nothing like the New Testament where the truth of the resurrection was proclaimed with passion and conviction. “This same Jesus, whom you crucified,” thundered the apostle Peter at Pentecost, “God has made both Lord and Christ.” Throughout Christian history men and women have with eyes of faith seen the risen Christ and gone forth to turn their world upside down. But Rowe lives in hope that “data points” will somehow break the stony hearts of unbelieving scientists and lead them to faith.
This readiness to meet “critics on their own (common) grounds, using their presuppositions and their methodology” is for Rowe a strength. He believes that by joining the enemies of Christ he, and they, will finally be led by science to affirm all the essentials of the Christian faith. If the issues involved were not so serious one could almost laugh at his naivete.
Now please don’t get me wrong. Christians can take comfort in the thought that when everything is finally revealed, we will discover no conflict ever existed between the Word of God and a truly scientific understanding of the world God made. But scientists are fallen human beings, who apart from the supernatural experience of the New Birth live in constant hostility toward God (Rom. 8:7). Every time it appears that science may be looping back to affirm Biblical teachings, unbelieving scientists start searching for new theories in order to avoid any admission that the Bible is true.
“But by joining unbelieving scientists at their own level, Rowe has nothing to proclaim and nothing to defend, thus no apologetic”
Consider the Big Bang as Exhibit A. Almost the moment the Big Bang was put forward as an explanation for the origin of the universe scientists began looking for other explanations. Why? Because the data didn’t support it? No, because the concept of a singularity from which everything suddenly came into existence sounded too much like Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 33:9. And now that it has become apparent that the Big Bang doesn’t leave enough time for evolution to do the work of creation, efforts to find another explanation are becoming ever more frantic. What these spiritually blind scientists need is not a fellow traveler who joins them in their wanderings, but someone who can see in order to point them toward the Truth as it is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21). But by joining unbelieving scientists at their own level, Rowe has nothing to proclaim and nothing to defend, thus no apologetic.
How much better that we should embrace the spirit of Douglas Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics Manifesto. His article lists 19 ways to “ignite apologetics passion,” but perhaps it will be enough to merely state the first:
Christian apologetics involves the presentation and defense of Christianity as an integrated worldview that is objectively, universally, and absolutely true, reasonable, knowable, and existentially pertinent to both individuals and entire cultures. Apologetics involves rebutting unbelieving accusations against Christianity (2 Corinthian 10:3-5; Jude 3) as well as giving a constructive and persuasive case for Christian theism (Philippians 1:7; 1 Peter 3:15).
Dear friends, we have a faith to defend, and we should defend it with all our might. In the words of Edward Burns’ great hymn: We have a gospel to proclaim/Good news for men in all the earth/The gospel of a Saviour’s name/We sing His glory, tell His worth.
