My Response to Dr. Craig Blomberg

I engage Christian scholars all the time and have even allowed a few of them to post something substantive here at DC, including Craig. So after having said he has read my stuff extensively and after both admitting neither one of us will likely change our minds, Craig asked me this:
John, I guess my question for you is, from your perspective, how should people who hold views like you and I, respectively, proceed in conversation, if at all? The consistent pluralist would say that we should each tolerate each other's perspectives. But you and I are apologists, and you are an evangelist ("de-evangelist?") as well. You aren't content to let Christians believe what they want; you positively want to "deconvert" them and show them how and why their views are delusional. I don't engage in much overt evangelism but I certainly want people who haven't thought about the classic reasons for Christian faith to at least give them serious thought. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But the more interesting question for me is how, as two persons who both want to be guided by reason but believe that reason has led us in quite opposite directions, proceed from here? Link
Well, Craig, we could always call each other names! Or, we could talk about the weather, the Colts and stuff. But most likely we'll just carry on carrying on. I still think you're deluded. I still think you believe what you prefer to believe. I still think an educated evangelical is an oxymoron, because at this point the facts will not change your mind, which is a scary thought to me.

At this point realize that I no longer write for you. You may want to read what I write since as an apologist you may want to ward off my attacks on your faith, and I may want to read what you write in order to attack a strong man rather than a straw man, but that's the way it goes I suppose.

Cheers, my deluded friend. ;-)

37 comments: