Playing Against Type

A Christian and a Skeptic Consider Both Sides

Kyle J. Gerkin and James Patrick Holding

We have an idea. It's time for some intelligent debate.

Skeptics and Christians have been butting heads for quite some time now, and it doesn't look like that will be coming to an end any time soon - barring the Rapture, of course, which in any event the Christian here, being of preterist bent, doesn't believe in. But, for all our disagreements, there is at least one thing we both can agree upon: Namely, that overall, many of the people involved in this debate are, well, not the sharpest tools in the shed. And this goes for people on both sides of the issue. For every time that Kyle debates a Christian and gets the distinct impression that he is talking to a brick wall, J. P. knows there is a Christian out there having the same experience with some boneheaded Skeptic -- and when it comes down to it, J. P. finds he has the same kind of brick discussion with fellow Christians as well! 

Ever since we did our own head butt a few months ago, the two of us have been exchanging some pleasant correspondence. On a lark one day, Kyle sent J. P. his outline of the broad types of people one encounters in both the Christian and Skeptic camps. Ironically enough, J. P. looked at the list and found that in his OWN encounters -- whether at church or whether dealing with Skeptics -- his own estimations would be much the same.

Just for fun, let's have a look at those lists. After each type, we have listed a % figure which is a (very) rough estimate of the total number of such people in the United States. That number is based purely on our own subjective experiences, which may differ from one's own, and is thus not to be taken too seriously. However, we would be interested to hear readers' thoughts with regards to the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of our estimates, as well as the suggestion of any categories that might have been excluded. Feedback can be directed here. 

Types of Christians: 

The Misguided Sheep - 15%
This is to a good extent the TBN demographic, the sort of people J. P. lived down the street from when Benny Hinn resided in Orlando. They are Biblically illiterate or failing in comprehension, and resist all attempts to be contextually educated. Some would say apologetics is of the devil and would cite Col. 2:8 as proof. They are easily swayed by charismatic personalities and emotional manipulation. These are the primary consumers of the "health and wealth" gospel and apt to fall in with alternate faiths of a pseudo-Christian variety. On this site think Edgar Jones as an example, and those who fall for open theism are on the other extreme of this group. 

The Live and Let Lives - 25%
People like this have no idea that something like an Infidels.org or a Tektonics.org even exist; they use the Internet only for email and buying stuff if they have it at all. If they were ever confronted by a Skeptic they would just give them a tract. They are not of necessity hostile to apologetics, but would just say, "Well, that's your calling, brother, and I wish you well. God bless you." Their only goal, an honorable one to be sure, is to live like Christ (though often more as they imagine Christ through Western eyes).

The Vague Spiritualists - 20%
These people profess to be Christian, but don't really know much about the Bible or Christian history. Their theology is a hybrid of personal desires and cultural assimilation. You would think of these in terms of the churches at Thyatria and/or Sardis. Robert Schuller would be here, just short of being a Misguided Sheep by virtue of his education. 

The Halfway Educated - 20%
These Christians know enough about their particular brand to seem intelligent enough on the surface, but can't stand much examination of their views. They tend to get flustered if questioned beyond a few basic assertions, or else return the focus to their personal testimony, and also resist contextual education, preferring instead to think of Josh McDowell as THE Christian apologist that needs no defense. Like the Let Lives they will bless ministries like Tekton and the ThinkTank but see no need for them as a whole: "Just show them the Bible!" 

The Lone Rangers - 5%
These are the ones who are fairly well educated, but dislike church authority. They tend to have at least one or two unusual scriptural interpretations but are solidly grounded for the most part. They might gravitate toward the house church movement. 

The Scholarly Liberals - 5%
These are well educated Christians who have embraced most of secularism, but are holding out on a few key issues. Think your average Episcopalian here and some "cultural" Roman Catholics, and maybe Rudolf Bultmann. The gentleman who sent me a deist tract (see here) would be here also.

The Scholarly Moderates - 5%
Well educated Christians who do not believe in inerrancy, but do accept the cardinal points that make Christianity distinct: salvation by faith in Christ, the Resurrection, etc. You would put someone like N. T. Wright here, or Raymond Brown.

The Scholarly Conservatives - 5%
Well educated Christians who consider the Bible to be sole, inerrant repository of God's word. The webmaster of this site, J.P. Holding,  is a prime example. [Note: Those are Kyle's words -- not mine. -- JPH] J. P. would say that his readers also fall here, or at least are heading this way. Such persons are willing to "test everything" and explore arguments against their faith. 

Types of Skeptics:

The Counter-Culture Hangers-on - 10%
These are skeptics (especially with regards to religion) who haven't done any kind of significant thinking or research but merely disbelieve because its "chic" to go against the crowd or because an influential person in their life is a skeptic and they are following the wake. Tend to be younger persons.

The Takers of the Path of Least Resistance - 30%
These skeptics disbelieve because it fits their personal ends. They don't want to bother with the hassle of church or service, etc. They often also believe (erroneously) that disbelief gives them a moral blank check. These persons are also likely to leave religious faith because someone in their church, especially family, behaved hypocritically; then they will seek out Skeptical arguments to justify their position. 

The Halfway Educated - 40%
The other side of the coin. Skeptics who think they know more than they do. Very confident on the surface but get out of their depth quickly. J. P. classes Dennis McKinsey here as well as many others.  

The Selectively Superstitious - 10%
These people will be rabid skeptics with regard to certain things (say religion), and sometimes even well educated on an issue, but then are the picture of credulity when it comes to other things (say psychics). Usually lacking in the logic department. J. P. would put Acharya S in this category. 

The Scholarly Skeptics - 10%
Those who have researched and thought out their position with careful consideration, and are also willing to listen to coherent arguments against their views and listen to them thoughtfully. J. P. puts Kyle in this group [and those are my words, not his -- JPH]. 

The types we listed were educational gradations of a sort. There is a also a gradient which runs from The Zealots (those who attack others' belief/unbelief with a diehard fervor) to The Quiet Ones (those who keep their position to themselves unless it is forced out of them). In the middle are the Diplomats, who attempt to achieve an understanding and a measure of the differences between skeptics and believers and to investigate the reason for those differences.

This article has been written as a prelude to a certain project we both have in mind, and oddly enough arrived at independently. In the interest of a productive debate, and from a Christian perspective as a means of rational evangelism, we recommend Scholarly Diplomats seeking each other out, even if one has to do some serious seeking. For the present, that would also mean the two of us, and of course we call this the Scholarly Diplomacy Project. So in the near future look for us to start engaging some serious discussion on pertinent issues in a forum that will be announced and will be noted on this page.