I began to respond to your post but then listened to this revisited episode and thought that my follow-up would better fit here. Perhaps you can address some of the pointsI bring up in the mentioned upcoming episode (outlining the theological case for this types of ‘cultural engagements’)…

But I agree with your arguments. I also agree with the panel’s theological foundations expressed in both of the Bazan episode(s). And if the subject at hand pertained only to apologetics I should think I would not sense a need to add anything to what you have written and said as I have no issues with your general ‘apologia’ of Apologetics. An apologist ‘engages’ the culture, fair enough. But nevertheless… You noted a very important distinction between the role of apologetics and the word of God, the ultimate authority for our faith and life. Distinction which, I believe, should not merely be acknowledged but kept foremost in mind when mission of the church is in view. Because if we are not careful we can import some apologetics tasks to the church and blur the distinction we just recognized, and that without a convincing reason or explanation. All the while the Scriptures may be pointing us – the church – to a different way (and to slightly different conclusions) in which to approach our ministry to the world (mission), as well as to the saints (equipping). My response, I could say then, is endeavoring to be one from the church and to this distinction.

With this set as the general tone let me attempt to expand (briefly) on my previous comments posted under the first ‘Bazan’ episode.

I have never before heard of David Bazan and I am not familiar with any of his songs or lyrics. But going simply by your review(s) it seems abundantly clear that the young man in question is lost and in need of salvation. In need of our prayers and in need of repentance, no doubt. What is unclear to me, though, is how this makes him any different from my pagan neighbor, or his views any more dangerous to the church than the views of any of our pagan neighbors. The fact that he happens to have a microphone does not seem, to me at least, to automatically warrant our special attention. Yes, I suppose if we cross over to studies of social behavior, general media influences, christian psychology, or some forms of apologetics as it happens- we could draw all kinds of valid reasons for the church to be concerned with David’s message (or the themes in James Cameron’s latest blockbuster for that matter) and sense the need to engage him. But I do not think that the church should be eager to board this train. At least not, I believe, if we strive to let the scriptures take their proper place against the myriad of competing voices crowding the contemporary evangelical – even reformed – landscape.

David, then, is sadly dead in his trespasses according to his own clear rejection of the truth. As such, like any other unregenerate man or woman, is as “blind as a mole” in his ability to perceive and understand Heavenly things according to Calvin (Institutes 2.2.18). If this is true, then how much of our ‘exegetical effort’ should we really spend on his message? If, in fact, he clearly rejects the Truth is there even a need to exegete? I think you know my answer. But note further Calvin’s pertinent distinction on the natural man’s ability to know God (and His paternal favor) against the method of properly regulating the conduct (later termed “the knowledge of the works of righteousness”). I bring it up not because I think we disagree with what Calvin is saying there (I know we don’t) but rather because I think this distinction bears on the way in which we, the Church, should ‘engage’ the culture. In other words, in reacting to calumnies of nonbelievers (with our without a microphone), in order to conduct them to the Truth, it seems that our efforts might be better directed to appeal to man’s ability to perceive their transgressions of the divine law, and more particularly, to the Second Table. So that, by God’s grace, once convicted of their sin… …we can introduce to them the blessed Saviour. And what is this but preaching the Gospel to them? As I already mentioned, it is what Paul was clearly doing in Acts 17 since the Word itself testifies pointedly in the verse I gave (Acts 17:18). Why, then, should the church rush to look to apologetic tasks when the Scriptures clearly present first things first?

This brings me to another point to which I also alluded in my first post. I certainly agree with you that “we must exegete”. But it seems that the culture should not warrant much of this effort, if any at all (back to my first point: One “blind as a mole” needs to have the Gospel preached to). Instead, looking at the Scriptures as a whole, it is hard to escape a very clear emphasis for the people of God to be alert against the deception and error coming from within, not without. (And in order to be alert we must ‘exegete’, lest we pick just any ‘fight’.) Consider the wolves in sheep’s clothing referred to by our Lord (Matt 5:4). And those for whom He reserved the sharpest rebukes (Matt 23,Luke 11). And those whom Paul calls ‘dogs’ (Phi 3:2), and those whom he wished accursed (Gal 1:8ff). And the reasons he gets in the face of another apostle (Gal 2:11), and those who zealously courted Galatian christians (Gal 4:17). And those who “crept in unnoticed” and are “spots in our love feast” (Jude 1:4,12), and false teachers Peter speaks of (2 Pet 2). Indeed, the weight of the warnings of the entirety of the epistles as well as the messages to the seven churches in Revelation… I could go on but I think the inference is clear: We are to be foremost discerning against false teaching and false teachers, those who very clearly seem to be operating from within the Kingdom of God. It is to this end that I sense our exegetical efforts should more accurately be directed. David Bazan, according to his profession, is neither part of the church and, therefore, much less is he a teacher of the truth.

I know I am bringing up the obvious, but it is the obvious that is often the easiest to overlook.

So back to your propositions. “Defense of the faith against all forms of unbelief… …is a necessary [endeavor] for the church”: Yes, with the Scriptures pointing to our efforts being almost entirely – if not exclusively – directed towards the purity of teaching and living of those within the Church, not the culture. I acknowledge and salute your clear rejection of transformationalism, btw. It is just the part of your view that appropriates this task (reacting to and ‘engaging’ the culture and cultural phenomena) also to the church that seems to me to be in tension with this position. But I will wait to listen to the forthcoming episode you mentioned to get a better sense…
“We must ‘exegete’ culture – that is measure it against Scripture – so that we can provide a faithful account for the hope that we have within us (1 Pet 3:15)”: The immediate context of the verse – suffering for the sake of righteousness – probably makes it less than ideally suited for the subject at hand. But if we were to apply it to our discussion, I believe we ought to consider all its parts very carefully in order to arrive at a better sense of the context and nature of this “defense” Peter speaks of. Because, for example, “sanctifying Christ as Lord [of our] hearts” can very easily be interpreted to admonish us to ‘stay away from’ certain things. [Btw, we should be careful not to react to stereotypes and caricatured views that seem to imply only two ways: engaging the culture critically as you propose, or not doing anything at all (min 9). A manufactured dichotomy, I think. The fact is, most of us simply wake up and the culture hits us right in the face. No need to seek it out to engage it, frankly. One simply needs be alive to be ‘engaged’.] If so, then our mixed signals in the line of ‘good music but bad lyrics’ or ‘smart questions, bad conclusions’ may simply serve to muddy the waters for the pious but less discerning soul. Indeed, I fear that encouraging to ‘exegete’ and defend against things which may actually not even need to be ‘touched’ (a simple rejection would more than suffice) – the church could reap some very real and undesired consequences: Entangling of ourselves in the affairs of this world. But this is just my fear- only time will tell whether or not it is justified.

I think we agree that the church (today) finds itself immersed in the culture and is generally not discerning of the dangers therein. We may also agree that there are many church leaders who helped to contribute to this in being driven by their desire to be relevant (and/or culturally engaging). Given this general climate of the times we live in, I wanted briefly to present a point of view and make the case that, in equipping the church and building up of the disciples in maturity on this, encouraging and training them to ‘exegete’ popular works may not be the best approach. Perhaps you will find some of the points worth considering.

Anyway… I should just add that I vest no authority in this view apart from one’s own consent with the verses and inferences agreeing with the Spirit of God.

All the best.

I think there are genuine philosophical considerations pertaining to the pre-suppositions underlying epistemeology. If you want to see these expressed at a popular level you could listen to some of Tim Keller’s apologetic talks on youtube.

However, there are also a bunch of people who use presuppositionalism as a sort of universal acid against every other worldview in a manner not unlike internet trolls – or an over precocious kid who keeps saying “prove it!” after every statement of fact.

That is – presuppositionalism doesn’t have to be as bad as the wikipedia article makes it out to be – though usually it is.

Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to listening to you engage with some of the counterarguments to the presuppositionalist/covenental theory. Ever since I heard you discussing it I’ve been trying to figure out if there’s more to it than, “Based on the assumption that I am right, I am right,” but I haven’t been able to find much. I did enjoy _Collision_ but it mostly reinforced that perception…

In hope,
Steve

“I am calling the rigidity of reformed theology something that has been cultivated.”

Does this assessment of certain disciplines like reformed theology include cultural anthropology? Is the statement : Cultural Anthropology is something that has been cultivated : true or false? If false, why? Is it also false to say cultural anthropology cannot “attempt to critique a system that is outside of its framework”? If it is false, why? You also mentioned the “attempt to step outside that framework” when referring to Christianity. How does one know whether or not they are truly outside the framework?

I am simply hoping to continuing the probe began by Ranger.

I should clarify my point about ‘wiring’. In my first comment about being ‘wired that way from birth’. I meant that since birth and through childhood etc he has been nurtured in such a way that, to his mind, the existence of God has been engrained ( I wish I could use another word than ‘engrained’). My point is that the idea is not hard-wired, as if had he been brought up in an atheistic family or culture he would still presuppose God’s existence. That is not my point. Your point that ‘the idea of God does pop up on everyone’s radar’ is a gross exaggeration. Firstly, those who belong to a particular cultural group who do believe in a god, will not necessarily believe in the God that you do. Secondly, there are many cultures (and perhaps they are diminishing in light of European colonization and Christian hegemony) that do not believe in a God in the same way as the monotheistic religions do. In these cases, the idea of ‘God’ is completely foreign. Of course many, if not all, cultures of the world past and present believe in some ‘spiritual’ realm or transcendent reality. But these conceptions have not been dominated by the idea of one God. There is, therefore, nothing wrong with the wiring of either the theist, atheist, or other. The overwhelming pattern, however, is that such a wiring, or cultivation, has occurred.

I am not from the United States. I live in Australia. I have also lived in China (for roughly 2 years). I dispute the claim that the idea of God comes up on everybody’s radar. If it does, it takes different forms and is responded to in radically different ways. As a student of cultural anthropology I am faced with the relativity of beliefs, including my own. Your last point of “why criticize Reformed theology for being “rigid,” when such a perspective of hardwiring is as rigid as it can get?” is interesting, but I think mistaken. I think I have already answered that by saying it is not necessarily ‘hard-wired’, and so granted as something natural. But it is ‘wired’ nonetheless; it is cultivated. To say that it is ‘cultivated’, however, does not make it less real. That would be like saying nation states are not real because we created them: They are as real as anything else, but perhaps in a different way than, say, a tree. To be clear, I am calling the rigidity of reformed theology something that has been cultivated. It is not so much a criticism of that belief system as it is a criticism of reformed theologians’ attempts to critique something outside of their framework. Congruently, I am saying that the ‘wiring’/ cultivation of beliefs seems to occur universally to lesser or greater degree. It is a pattern that can be seen across cultures. Just because we have been ‘wired’ in a certain way, does not mean that we are not able to become aware that such a process has occurred and thereby attempt to step outside that framework. Not sure if I’ve made any sense at all… 🙂

You make some interesting points, that I’d like to probe further if that’s okay? I would suspect that most listeners of this podcast live in America and I’ve been away from America for quite some time so things surely might have changed. From my experiences living in Asia (China and the Pacific Rim), the idea of God does pop up on everyone’s radar, even on those whom you wouldn’t have expected it at all. If though, I were to meet such a person whom the question or idea has never even come up on the radar, I would assume (as I think you imply) that something is wrong with the wiring since they seem so far from the norm. The question then becomes are those who suppress proper beliefs or those who appear hardwired against such beliefs culpable for not holding those beliefs?

But that brings me to my next question. If people are as wired in their ultimate beliefs as you say they are, then why criticize Reformed theology for being “rigid,” when such a perspective of hardwiring is as rigid as it can get? I’m sure I’m missing something here, so help me out.

Adam,
I don’t think anyone would contest that his questions are honest. There is no doubt that he has gone through a rough five or six years and that he’s simply trying to write about where he stands. He’s always written very honest music.

But being honest doesn’t preclude being arrogant or rebellious. If God exists, then his questions are rebellious regardless of his honesty and ultimately his questions result from a delusion. I don’t think Dave would disagree…in fact, he’s said as much in various interviews over the past six months. There is no doubt whatsoever that he stands between two worldviews at this point and is struggling to balance them. I think that’s a point that this podcast tries to bring out.

I suspect that if he lives as though the Christian God does exist, he does so because he been wired that way from birth. It doesn’t take an expert in psychology or cultural anthropology to figure that one out. Why for so many others in the world does the idea of God not even pop up on their radar? I’ll listen to what they have to say about epistemology.

Your last point about “if God doesn’t exist can you even ask the question” is as you say absurd. The analogy is an apt one, if you presuppose God exists. Bazan, in his songs, is talking to someone whom he has ‘known’ and loved for most of his life – the difference is that he recognizes that it may have been his imagination. He is talking to thin air. Here’s another analogy: a child is running away from its father towards a river full of piranas (or sharks or whatever), there is no father who wouldn’t run to stop the child before he or she jumps in. Even if the child pleads that the father allow them to jump in, no father in his right mind could allow it. That, for me, is an analogy of hell. If the rebuttal is that have an informed choice (and therefore we are able to reason about our choice) then I would question our capacity/ freedom to reason. No one in their right mind chooses to go to hell. If they do, why? I would argue that they lack the true freedom required to make that decision.

Well, it may end up being just as pointless I suppose. If one cannot imagine life outside a rigid worldview such as reformed theology, then you’re not going to be able to appreciate where Bazan is coming from. Therefore the critique becomes merely a defense of the ‘Truth’ that shows no signs of understanding or appreciation of the other point of view.

The difference, however, is that Bazan is able to see both sides of the argument. He lives in that space between two worldviews. The podcast that I just heard lives solely in its own world. It does not attempt to imagine life outside it. They set Bazan within their own framework of understanding to critique him. It misses the entire point of Bazan’s songs and actually goes to show how the strength of the Christian model is so difficult to surmount, despite one’s own intellectual capacities to question it. Bazan has been framed as being arrogant, rebellious, deceived and the like; typical Christian responses. Has anyone ever stopped to think maybe he was attempting to ask an honest question?

Adam,
There’s no need to be so presumptuous. I personally have dealt with those questions and I assume the hosts have as well. I would suggest that you finish the episode because they address some of the things you accuse them of not doing.

The reason they talk so much about epistemology is that where you begin will often determine where you end up. If you claim a certain epistemology yet find that you continue, even must continue living as though another epistemology is true, then the fault comes at the base level. The episode does this very thing. Since David claims that the Christian God does not exist, then why does he live as though He does? Cornelius Van Til talked about a child who sits on her Father’s lap in order to slap his face. From our perspective that’s what Dave is doing. You charge the hosts with not looking at his questions as if God doesn’t exist, but they take the question even deeper…if God doesn’t exist can you even ask the question.

This may seem absurd to you, but that is my perspective (and I suspect it is similar to the hosts).

Just curious.

Oops, I think this comment should have been on your first pod-cast on Bazan, not this one.

If you stopped for a minute to imagine that God perhaps did not exist and then look at your Christian beliefs (and background, lifestyle, loyalties etc) in light of that idea, then you may have some idea of where Bazan is coming from. Bazan, unlike yourselves, does not presume to know that God exists. He’s tackling the very presuppositions that you take as given. I find it a somewhat pointless task, then, to critique his songs solely within the framework he’s questioning. You may disagree with me.

Yeah, sorry the comment was so long, but the interview really bothered me.

At the end of this episode, you guys said that Christianity is not only self-referentially coherent, but is coherent with respect to the real world. But earlier you said that everyone has presuppositions, and no one has an unbiased view of the world. So how do we know what the real world is like to verify this since our perceptions are tainted by our presuppositions, language, culture, and genes?

I think you guys spent too much time on epistemology. Dave’s questions were not so much epistemologically based, but dealt with the content and claims of Christianity. You only dealt with Dave’s questions in part. You can certainly challenge Dave’s epistemology so that he must analyze how he can even ask the questions he is seeking answers to, but that doesn’t mean the debate just stops there. I also think that you might have dropped the Romans 9 bomb a little too quickly. Only after laying out his theology for 8 previous chapters did Paul ultimately give a (non)answer to the problem of evil and responsibility. To immediately go to Romans 9 will make any pill harder to swallow than it needs to be. That is like skipping right to the end of a great movie which renders the climax and resolution far less satisfying.

Overall it was interesting to listen to. I really haven’t seen many Christians really attempt to answer Dave’s questions from a reformed perspective.

1. He seems to argue that if we are honest with “hard questions” that we will find faith intellectually unsatisfying. At the same time, his honesty comes across as very humble.

2. He mentions the New Atheist / Apologist debate, but then says that beneath the surface something deeper is going on, and cites Barna on church shifts. He only mentions “hemorrhaging” of “thoughtful” Christians. Of course, when you look at the data, most “thoughtful” Christians actually stay around. Furthermore, I would contend that the bulk of those who have left the church are not the “thoughtful” but the rebellious. Skim Dawkins website for a few minutes and you will quickly find that the vast majority of your “ex-Christians” are 15-25 years old and were truly scarred by a fundamentalist or empty form of evangelicalism. I hate to be negative, but I would see Bazan’s theological background in a similar light (not his personal pursuit as much as his formative theological education in pentecostalism).

3. He proudly shakes his fist at God, and from my perspective even the questions he appears to be asking are rebellious (i.e. ethical) in nature. People can claim rationalism all they want (and this isn’t aimed at Bazan in particular), but wherever the heart goes the mind follows. It doesn’t work the other way around.

4. He has placed himself in god’s place, and at this point I don’t think we should expect to see much future in his pursuit when he sees himself as the sole arbiter of what is true. I don’t say this lightly and I don’t want it to be misconstrued by some of the other commenters. What I mean is that when you say that you may come back to faith if more information comes in, then you are saying that you are the sole arbiter of what is true/false about God. He is the central factor in his epistemology.

5. I’m disturbed by his answer “I’m very curious about what Christianity will look like in, say, 20 or 30 years. When the boomers are no longer running the show, when we’ve recovered from what I see as a very dark period for evangelical Christianity, I wonder what Christianity will look like. I’m very curious to see.” As some of the commenters rightly stated, his questions (and those similar to him) are not new and have been discussed for two thousand years. Isn’t it somewhat audacious to think that your generation will somehow change the face of Christianity when you really aren’t bringing any new questions to the table? At the same time, this answer is so typical of young evangelicals because we are constantly told that we are going to be the generation that we turn to the Lord (I’m thinking primarily of the Passion movement) at one end of the spectrum and on the other end of the spectrum (Emergent) they see themselves as the future of Christianity which is totally open to changing based on whatever the latest cultural questions may be.