(updated 7/11/07)

Finally, the 21st century Apologist needs to take Apologetics far more seriously. He needs to incorporate Apologetics into every aspect of his or her ministry: every sermon, every class, every evangelistic activity. We have woefully neglected our responsibility to train our young people in the solid case for Christianity, and then we wonder why they depart from the faith under the influence of secular university instruction. We give our parishioners and our missionaries no foundation in the defence of the faith, and then wonder why our evangelistic efforts show so little fruit in a world where people have long moved beyond accepting something just because someone else believes it.

-- John Warwick Montgomery

Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left...because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amuck; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.’ His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. ... The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.

-- Dr. Daniel Wallace

This is an article about how the church at large has failed us.

It is, of course, by no means meant to imply that there are not exceptions to the rules to be discussed. You may be part of a local church body without these failings, and if you are, you should be glad of it. But let's be honest -- most churches ARE failing when it comes to these matters we will discuss.

Here is the problem that I see re-occurs time and time again:

1. Our churches do not educate people in the basics of their faith. We seldom if ever hear about things like textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, alleged "copycat" savior gods, etc. Churches instead have fallen for the postmodernist indulgence of self and concentrate more on entertainment-value ministry such as skateboard demonstrations. (Such churches would rarely consider inviting a teacher -- whether an apologist or a seminary professor or what have you -- for whatever reason; I suspect it is because many pastors feel threatened by having someone around who might "correct" them, but I am sure simple ignorance of what is out there plays a role too.)
2. Because our people are not educated in these matters, they are caught "flat footed" when confronted with them.
3. Some people are unaffected and simply go on their merry way. Good for them, maybe, though such people also often stand in the way when someone tries to up the intellectual ante a bit. Others start having questions.
4. Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge; their degrees are more geared towards counseling or preaching technique. Likewise Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told that eg, questioning is evil, they should have faith, etc. which is not satisfactory (and it comes often from the "merry way" sorts).
5. The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources, but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
6. Persons with questions come across Skeptical literature in print or online that is mostly written by persons with no better education in the relevant areas. However, because the reader also lacks the necessary education and thinking skills, the base level of what is called "common sense" (as it would often be, if indeed the facts were as the literature says) becomes persuasive precisely because of their ignorance. For example, ignorance of the process and science of textual criticism could lead to the erroneous "common sense" conclusion that there is some problem in that we have "only copies of copies of copies" of the New Testament.
7. By this time it is often too late to even provide such people with sound material by credible authorities. They are not able to comprehend even the simplest defense at times (and indeed, certain things simply can NOT be simplified so much, for otherwise they lose power and credibility as defenses), because they have not been given the adequate foundation to understand what someone like eg, a Bruce Metzger says about textual criticism. Because it violates what they have taken to be a sound, "common sense" approach by a non-authority who is equally in the dark, it is simple for them to simply dismiss answering material as some sort of desperate effort to resolve what is really a very serious problem (though in reality it isn't).

What can or needs to be done about this?

• Taking your church through "Purpose Driven Life" won't solve this.
• Reading "Left Behind" novels won't solve this.
• More contemporary music programs, "extreme" skateboard demonstrations, and "seeker-friendly" techniques won't solve this.
• Joel Osteen will DEFINITELY not solve this. Pandering to what are perceived as "needs" is part of the problem, not the solution. There is a broad failure to distinguish between "needs" and "wants".
• Your average Sunday School materials, which strain mightily to make passages like Is. 42 somehow relevant to the average working person, won't solve this.
• Building a new church gymnasium won't solve this.
• Youth programs involving gimmicks and games won't solve this.
• Passing out tracts won't solve this.
• Dumbing down the sermons even more and not mentioning sin won't solve this.

Of course I'm being facetious. The only way to solve this is with a solid educational program, which is exactly what we lack in so many of our churches. It's time for fewer prefab sermons, with their rampant decontextualizations, and time for more demonstrations on textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, and so on. It's time to make such efforts a priority and not something we take after the damage is done and we need to play "catch up". It's time to be proactive instead of reactive. It's time to make these things something that is discussed from the pulpit on Sunday morning, not hidden away in Sunday night church training classes or Wednesday night Bible study. It's also time to make this part of our evangelism, and throw away or at least de-prioritize all the gimmicks like the "Evangecubes" (I can never get a full picture on all six sides anyway) and the poorly drawn Chick tracts.

Recently (10/07) a reader pointed me to an article here by Bob Burney which serves to emphasize the failure of the "here I am, entertain me" seeker-sensitive model, and I feel most of it is worth using here:

....For most of a generation evangelicals have been romanced by the "seeker sensitive" movement spawned by Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago...

Perhaps inadvertently, with this "new wave" of ministry came a de-emphasis on taking personal responsibility for Bible study combined with an emphasis on felt-needs based "programs" and slick marketing.

The size of the crowd rather than the depth of the heart determined success. If the crowd was large then surely God was blessing the ministry. Churches were built by demographic studies, professional strategists, marketing research, meeting "felt needs" and sermons consistent with these techniques. We were told that preaching was out, relevance was in. Doctrine didn't matter nearly as much as innovation. If it wasn't "cutting edge" and consumer friendly it was doomed. The mention of sin, salvation and sanctification were taboo and replaced by Starbucks, strategy and sensitivity.

Thousands of pastors hung on every word that emanated from the lips of the church growth experts. Satellite seminars were packed with hungry church leaders learning the latest way to "do church." The promise was clear: thousands of people and millions of dollars couldn't be wrong. Forget what people need, give them what they want. How can you argue with the numbers? If you dared to challenge the "experts" you were immediately labeled as a "traditionalist," a throwback to the 50s, a stubborn dinosaur unwilling to change with the times.

All that changed recently.

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study's findings are in a new book titled Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings "earth shaking," "ground breaking" and "mind blowing." And no wonder: it seems that the "experts" were wrong.

The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:

"We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

...the error of the seeker sensitive movement is monumental in its scope. The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a "mistake." The extent of this error defies measurement.

...What we should find encouraging, at least, in this "confession" coming from the highest ranks of the Willow Creek Association is that they are coming to realize that their existing "model" does not help people grow into mature followers of Jesus Christ. Given the massive influence this organization has on the American church today, let us pray that God would be pleased to put structures in place at Willow Creek that foster not mere numeric growth, but growth in grace.

Here's a more personal account that verifies Burney's points. I recently received this testimony from a reader. Names have been deleted or altered so as to protect the reader's identity.

You'll recall that I've been in touch with you in the past and even got your site linked on our (name and location of church) high school ministry website some time ago. I'm writing you because of the distress I'm feeling after many weeks and months of observation of changes taking place in our church of approximately #000 members, and conversations with a few fellow believers concerning those changes.....

I sat under the teaching of _____ ______ at _______ Church in ______, a member of the (denominational group)...for nearly 20 years. (The pastor) is a graduate of BIOLA and founded in sound doctrine, preaching the need for repentance and forgiveness. Two years ago he accepted a position in _____________ which, of course, necessitated the search for a new head pastor.

That search resulted in the hiring of one ____ __________, a disciple of the "seeker format" promulgated by Rick Warren and used in the mega-church from which he came, Willow Creek in Illinois.

Our services have changed over the last year since he began teaching. There's been a gradual shift in the appearance of the "primary" service held in the sanctuary....including an increased use of media and visual arts to convey messages. I don't object to this in particular....but the saturation, even for one of my preferences, has just about worn out it's novelty and, therefore, impact in conveying the message it's intended to communicate.

The seminal moment of my recognizing a need to begin a process of seeking to address other issues that are reflected in the seeker style of service came today, Resurrection Sunday.

Throughout the entire service this morning, the name of Jesus was lifted up. Praises were sung, the difference between all other religions and Christianity was pointed out (in general). The cross that bridged the gap between man and God was demonstrated in the words spoken and the set that was constructed for the service.

So what was missing?

Not once during the service, either in words sung or spoken, was the single most important reason for Christ's sacrifice spoken of. Sin.

Yes, Jesus' death on the cross was the bridge, but only as a means to a "fuller life", a "life of service", a "life after death", the "life you've always wanted".

As I write this and contemplate the words about to be typed, I've literally begun to cry. Not once was it mentioned that Jesus died on the Cross for my sin. Yes, it was said he died for me, but FOR WHAT??

So I can have a happier life here in this world? Of course that's true! So I can spend eternity with Him and with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His heaven? Yes!! Emphatically! Yes!! That is the end result of his sacrifice.

But the question stands? Why did He NEED to die for me? And that single thought, the basis of salvation, the reason He suffered on the cross on my behalf, was never mentioned. Not once.

I grew up in the United Methodist Church. I heard the same message there for the first 17 years of my life. "Jesus loves you and died for you." But no one ever confronted me with my personal responsibility in that death and the cause of it. I remember distinctly that my salvation experience was the result of being convinced of my need for the Savior because I was a sinner.

Not because I would spend eternity in darkness separated from the Creator. Not because I needed more "things". Not because my life was a horrible experience. Heck, I was making decent money, enjoying the company of numerous women, and getting high on a daily basis, so in my limited view of a __ year old white male I was doing great!

Again it was that the word was preached. I heard that I was a sinner (and why I what I was doing was a sin), I heard that Christ loved me and died for me, and that the solution to the terrible conviction I was under was a relationship with Him.

Today, of all days, I expected to be able to go to the church I've attended for __ years and hear the glorious message of Christ's salvation preached. I was immensely disappointed, as you can tell.

Right now there is little or nothing being done to stop our churches turning down the wrong path as this one did. That needs to be stopped. Evangelical atheism (embodied by the likes of Harris, Dawkins and Dennett) is an intellectual embarrassment, but we can't expect people to know this. Your church needs to be ready for challenges, and we need to test our churches to see how ready they are, and be willing to either reform one that isn't ready, or leave one that refuses to reform, and do what we can to encourage others not to attend.

What's a good way to test your church?

• Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?
• How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
• Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats?
• Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus?
• If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?
• Are they more concerned with entertaining than with teaching? I am not talking about use of media (like PowerPoint); there is nothing wrong with this, because people have different learning styles. I am talking about substance lacking while stimulation takes the fore.

There are some answers to this that are no good:

• "This kind of approach will intimidate people." Does it occur to someone who says this that the Gospel was a very intimidating message in its time, one that upended all of the social values of its day? Let's not water down the facts or the message behind them for the sake of making yet more converts without an adequate foundation. (I have noted in my own teaching experience that many, many people, once they start listening to educational material, are very interested and pay close attention; they are not always in want of titillating entertaiments, as some churches seem to think. To use a common metaphor, the reason they eat Hostess Ding Dongs is because that is all you're serving them. Indeed, one gentleman said of my teaching that while he didn't understand it all the time, it got him "fired up" to learn more so that he could -- and that's the kind of attitude we need to instill.)
• "The Holy Spirit will move people." Then you don't need to preach watered-down feelgood sermons either, do you? Obviously no one practices this idea consistently except for the sort of person who a century or so back would not send a missionary to India under the reasoning that the Spirit would do all the work without missionaries. At least they were consistent in their approach.
• "We need to stick with our program." Like heck you do. It's not working; that's the POINT! Too many pastors and church leaders seem to find it threatening to depart from the scheduled Sunday School lesson, such that you'd think the Lifeway series was itself inerrant and infallible. Some are also afraid of something being taught that they can't understand themselves (sorry, but that was what you went to seminary for -- or were supposed to!); or of some influential/wealthy leader in the congregation getting their shorts in a wad when someone teaches a varied yet orthodox belief (such as orthodox preterism) that they personally find offensive. It's the Body of Christ, folks, and it is supposed to have a spine, too!

And, here are some good questions from a reader with similar concerns:

1. How can I find a church in my area that stays abreast of "hot topics" that attempt to falsify the Christian faith? What other questions can I ask my current church that would help me to get a sense of their direction?

   I'm putting these two questions together because the answers to both of them are much the same.

   We have a good chance here provided by The Da Vinci Code. Ask for a copy of whatever teachings they had on it from the pulpit. If they had none, you have an answer. If they did have some, listen to it and see how they deal with it -- with facts? With appeal to "just believe"? Also, simply ask about some of the hot topics and how those have been handled. Someone who answers your question about the Gospel of Judas with a "duh" is not doing a good job.

   Another thing I like to do is ask a pastor who their favorite Biblical scholar is. I did this once and got the supremely inane answer, "Warren Wiersbe" -- who is a pastor, not a scholar. See if they know of certain people like Wright or Witherington. If their knowledge of apologetics is limited to a copy of ETDAV, forget it. And, see if they have a staff position for education pastor (if it is a large enough church).

   As bad as it is, you might just be able to ask if they know what "apologetics" is and get an answer that tells you all you need to know.

2. If my church doesn't see the need for stronger apologetics how can I convince them otherwise? One of the most powerful things you can do is show them the results of the neglect. I have gathered a small notebook of powerful "anti-testimonies" from people like Dan Barker; if you want a copy, ask me and I'll send it. These anti-testimonies show that there is a strong desire to "anti-evangelize". You might also be able to raise awareness by bringing copies of material like Losing Faith in Faith and asking staff how they'd deal with someone who got hold of it and started thinking it was valid. This may be like hitting an anthill with a firehose, but if that's what it takes, so be it. Things are in such a state now that it is time to leave the weenie boys in the dust and let them have their skateboard demos and sing-a-lings to themselves. It's to the point where such churches and leaders are a cancer to the Body of Christ, and that means its time for some spiritual chemotherapy.

   Another thing you might be able to do is talk to some members about these issues and see if they have been looking for answers. As noted, I have found that yes, people DO want answers; and many will say that they have had questions all their life. If they have been looking for answers, provide some and use that as a point in favor of change: The need obviously exists. But if this doesn't wake them up, be warned: It will just make them hide deeper in their shell. But that's a good thing, because again, as serious as the problem is, the method is like the bumper sticker that says, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." The ones who hide in their shell or who continue to neglect the problem can get out of the way.

3. What do you see as the role or duty of the average churchgoer in this regard? This is an excellent question that came from a reader who is rather sympathetic to what I have expressed above. In essence, what do I think the "ideal" Joe in the pew should know (or nor know)? How about deacons, pastors, leaders?

   There's no "pat" answer on this, given the complexity of lives and needs out there, but let me set out some general guidelines in terms of how I'd answer this.

   • The mandatory foundation. The only things I place in this category -- which is what I think every Christian should know, even if they just serve soup at the homeless kitchen -- are core doctrines of Christianity and how they work and are defended. What's in here? Definitely the atonement, salvation, the Trinity, the nature of God in general. I'd also put a basic defense of the resurrection (without which, our faith is in vain!) in this category. Not stuff like copycat saviors myths, Calvin vs. Arminius, Greco-Roman rhetoric, or Gnostic cults. Everyone should also be aware of at least where to look for or find answers on things like copycat savior gods and the Christ myth, even if they don't want to master any of these subjects.

     I don't think this is at all unreasonable, given that it would place us on a level, in the first century, with people like Peter and John. What must be remembered is that for Peter and John, things like client-patron relationships (as it would relate, eg, to salvation) and hypostatic Wisdom (as it would relate to the Trinity) were already part of their mental furniture, so to speak, and we've got a deficiency because we lost it -- dare I say, we're actually as a whole "dumber" than Peter and John when it comes to certain things that were part of their world.

     The fact is that there is no excuse for Christians not to be able to articulate what they believe and why, and that means being informed where the foundation is concerned.

   • The middle level. If you're a teacher, or a deacon, then I'd like to see a higher level of awareness. I referred above to knowing where to find answers, if you're Joe Pew. If you're Joe Deacon or Joe Sunday School Teacher, then I think you need to be one of the people that we go out and find for answers on things like copycat saviors gods and the Christ myth. Not master all of it, but at least be articulate, and master a couple of areas so that you can be competent to informally judge matters in other subjects on the basis of experience. People at this level also ought to "network" so that each CAN be free to specialize in some areas and leave the rest to others to whom they can refer.
   • The upper crust. Things get a little dicey here as they relate to church offices today, which of course do not mirror that well the original model of the first century based on the synagogue. Ideally a church should have a person competent in the very difficult topics like Calvin vs. Arminius; or if a church is too small or financially strapped, they can co-op with other churches so that such an expert is available to them. Perhaps a local seminary professor could be tapped as a consultant in this regard (and in line with the above, be allowed to do things like preach and teach!) so that a pastor can attend to more personal needs of the flock (if they don't want to be the "go to" person themselves). In this regard I'd parallel it in the early church to that certain key leaders like Matthew, Paul, and Luke were among the most educated in their time. 1 of 12 apostles makes for between 5 and 10 percent, and it'd be nice if we had even that many prepared for the toughest questions, but even that we don't reach now.

Consider this a call to action.

Discuss this article here.

Despite the common stereotype, intellectual questions are not always merely a smokescreen for spiritual or moral problems. To be effective in equipping young people and professionals to face the challenges of a highly educated secular society, the church needs to redefine the mission of pastors and youth leaders to include training in apologetics and worldview. We must refuse to dismiss objections to the faith as mere spiritual subterfuge, but instead prepare ourselves to give what Schaeffer called "honest answers to honest questions." When America was a young nation, the clergy were often the most highly educated members of the community. The congregation looked up to them and respected their intellectual expertise. But today those sitting in the pews are often as highly educated as the pastor; among the general population the clergy may even be looked down upon as narrowly trained functionaries. In this climate, it is imperative for seminaries to broaden the education of pastors to include courses on intellectual history, training future pastors to critique the dominant ideologies of our day. Pastors must once again provide intellectual leadership for their congregations, teaching apologetics from the pulpit. Every time a minister introduces a biblical teaching, he should also instruct the congregation in ways to defend it against the major objections they are likely to encounter. A religion that avoids the intellectual task and retreats to the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings will not survive in today's spiritual battlefield.

-- Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth, 127

Appenndix: Whining from the Postmodern Highchair -- August 29, 2007

Recently I have had some experience on Amazon.com with their feedback mechanisms, in defense of Strobel's Case for the Real Jesus, that have crystallized some thoughts I've had rummaging about for a while. It has to do with the "argumentative" tactics of significant quarters of our population who are in the position of non-education described above.

The factors at work here are as follows:

• Individualism, selfishness, and the desire to live a life of seamless transition from one diversion/entertainment to another while doing as little as possible to become educated. My challenges to people like these to answer my material, and the sort of answers given by such people to works like Strobel's, are widely characterized by the use of either "sound bites" or the rhetorical tactics listed below. There is no prospect of such persons repeating my own processes in articles like the one I have on textual criticism or Q/Marcan priority. They have neither the time nor the desire, or either, to make their way to a research library and critically compare vast volumes of scholarly interchange in order to arrive at a conclusion. They want their answers in a can to go. To this extent they are highly suspectible to such works as Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus which fail to tell the whole story, but give them "answers" that they want to hear.
• Egotism, and/or the desire to be heard. And yet, such people also want to feel that they can accomplish something, that they have a voice that is worthy to be heard, and that they are just as good as anyone with a Ph. D. when it comes to delivering an opinion. Blogs, easy self-publishing ventures, and forums (like TWeb, or even the one on Amazon I referred to) give such people the place they need to make a quick and easy "impact" without all of the hard work. It democratizes expression, however in fact useless or erroneous it is. It leaves the impression that the mere fact of having said something, no matter how pedantic, has made one an equal with the other who has actually done the legwork.

Since nothing will change in any of this, such persons have created a series of defense mechanisms that are used as a substitute for real argument. These mechanisms act as a massage to the insecurities of the intellectually put-upon, who gather together and collectively endorse each other's resorts to these mechanisms. It is once again a vicious circle, just like the one previously described in this article; and it is a circle that occupies the same space as the prior one.

So what are these tactics? They may be expressed in exclamatory form:

• "That source you use is biased/has an agenda." The only answer required here is, so what? Truth is by nature biased -- towards the truth. "Bias" or "agenda" doesn't affect the content of an argument, nor does it relieve a doubter of a burden to make their own case and respond to an argument.

  Oddly enough, some who resort to this will admit that all sources are biased, but will naturally not see the inherent self-contradiction in their continuing to argue for their views nevertheless.

• "It's arrogant to act like you're right." Well, instead of all that, how about you deflate me a little by showing I'm wrong?
• "You/this source does not give both sides of the argument." The point is what? For some reason this idea has emerged that we are requried to present not only our arguments, but those of the opposition as well. Of course we often DO present their arguments in our rebuttals. But it seems that what these people want is, if they are authors, to be able to skip all the hard work of earning a reputation by quality (in much the same way that trailer park scholars demand that I provide links to their nonsense in my rebuttals, so that they can have more than 3 people a month come to visit), or if they are average readers, some way to keep from having to do the legwork themselves (I guess so they don't miss "24" or whatever). At the bottom of it is a shifting of responsibility that is unwarranted and arbitrary.
• "I maintain X happened, and you can't prove that it didn't." A myth has emerged that simple assertion affords a thesis automatic epistemic validity, and it becomes our responsiblity to "prove it wrong" whether it be the evil twin Jesus thesis or whatever; and then, even more validity is automatically accorded to any further contrivance that can be added as a prop when the original idea is refuted. The name of the game is arbitrary authority: I said it, that settles it. For some reason, though, the same people will just as readily dismiss opposing statements as "just your opinion."
• "People do weird things like join cults all the time." A tendency easily emerges to make statements like these which used to be called "sweeping generalizations." Of course the same people often get their pants in a wad when they think we do the same thing. But in any event, this is just a poor substitute for the sort of hard, detailed, research-laden argument that these people can't and won't do.
• "(Positional sound bite.)" Or as I once called it, the "most scholars say" (or "this guy says") method. Used very often with things like Q and Marcan priority, once again as a sub for argument. (As opposed to a proper use of this as an observation that a position is a consensus one, and that the opposition has work to do.)

Reader adds this commentary:

With reference to the above, I think the problem in most churches, especially among the youth is more disturbing than we might think.

Since I first began teaching apologetics on Saturday nights at my home, a lot of young people have admitted to me that before they were presented with the evidence, they did not actually believe the Bible, even after attending church, confessing their sins, being baptised etc.

We have many thousands/millions of people locked into a "seeking" phase, hoping that God exists and that the Bible is true, without ever reaching the "found" stage. They can agree with the moral framework of christianity, enjoy the warmth of fellowship, appreciate the relief of getting off drugs and drink, and being free from immorality etc. - yet still not actually KNOW that God exists and that the Gospel is true. Its almost like a hippy/new age movement, with the Bible as the mythological Aesops Fable-like framework that "works" on a certain psychological plane.

Anyway, got to get my iPod loaded with some Hillsong tunes and get radical on my Quad - that'll win over some youths.