Why You Can't Dismiss a Line of Reasoning Simply Because It's Religious

Helpful deconstruction of this common misconception by philosopher and apologist, Greg Koukl.


I would recommend his books:

• Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
• Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
• Faith Is Not Wishing: 13 Essays for Christian Thinkers

A Great Example of How To Address the "Tolerance" Issue in Public Conversation

Greg Koukl models this well here.

Being Personally Against Abortion But Thinking It Should Remain Legal

Melinda Penner:

I was with Greg at a Ligonier conference in Orlando once, and was talking to a man who came up to our display table. He saw some of our pro-life resources and announced that he personally believed that abortion was wrong, but he didn't believe that we should prohibit other people who thought differently about the issue from getting abortions. He thought it ought to be legal even though he personally thought it was wrong. This is the favorite choice of religious politicians who are pro-choice.

If somebody makes that kind of statement, there is always a tactic you employ. You ask a question. When they say, I'm personally against abortion but I don't think other people should be prohibited from having abortions, you ask, "Why are you personally against abortion? I understand that you don't think it's right and don't want to force your views on others, but why is it that you think abortion is wrong?"

It's a very fair question. You will consistently get basically the same answer, the answer that the gentleman gave Greg.

He said, I think abortion is wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human child, but that is just my personal view.

Greg said, Okay, I think I understand your view, but let me just repeat it back to you and you tell me if I've got it right. You think abortion kills an innocent human child, but you think women should be legally allowed to do that.

He said, Well, when you put it that way....

Read the rest.

Get this book to expand on this discussion.

Asking For Tolerance

Greg Koukl:

If you’re placed in a situation where you suspect your convictions will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, and judgmental, turn the tables. When someone asks for your personal views about a moral issue, preface your remarks with a question.

You say: “You know, this is actually a very personal question you’re asking, and I’d be glad to answer. But before I do, I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse ideas, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from yours?” Let them answer. If they say they’re tolerant (which they probably will), then when you give your point of view it’s going to be very difficult for them to call you intolerant or judgmental without looking guilty, too.

This response capitalizes on the fact that there’s no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view they think is right and everybody judges at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It’s an inescapable consequence of believing in any kind of morality.

I would highly recommend Greg's book that will help you think through this type of conversation and many others.

I wish Joel Osteen would have used this approach when facing his interrogators from the previous post.

Aren't You Being Intolerant?

The "Try Before You Buy" Approach to Sex

Greg Koukl:

The first problem with the "try before you buy" approach is that it reduces sex to physical mechanics. The title of a well-known book, Sex Begins in the Kitchen, makes a great point: A critical part of our sexual fulfillment has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom, a truth women understand better than men. 

Simply put, the power of sex and the effectiveness of a good sex life are not to be found merely in mechanics, but are primarily—though not entirely—relational. A good relationship can be improved by better mechanics, but good technique can't build a sound partnership. Ironically, "good" sex can actually be a danger sign. Some of the most unhealthy relationships are accompanied by tremendous sexual intensity. The cycle of conflict, then reconciliation, which is characteristic of unstable unions, can really launch the libido. That's why making up is so sweet. 

Later in life, though, this emotional seesaw gets old. The eroticism dissipates, but the fighting and distancing remain. The very pattern that stimulated passion ends up ruining the marriage. Conversely, qualities that make for a healthy marriage—respect, self-control, kindness, charity, sensitivity, patience—do not lend themselves to sexual intensity at the outset. In the long run, however, these virtues stabilize the relationship and contribute to a satisfying sex life.
Is your sweetheart patient, sensitive, self-sacrificial, understanding, kind, and concerned about your particular needs? Those qualities make the real difference in the long run, and you can discover them without jumping into the sack together to test the machinery.

Read the rest.  

Isn't Morality Just a Social Construction?

Just had a great meeting with one of my buddies from my part-time job in retail.  We have been working through Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and talking about the chapters.  He says that he is an agnostic.

Today we talked about morality and one of his challenges for me was his claim that there is no universal morality. He believes this points to the fact that there can't be a God who is the ultimate standard for right and wrong.  He cited the fact that many different cultures throughout history have defined morality quite differently.  Doesn't that point to morality simply being a construction of different societies?

Greg Koukl has some great responses to this line of thinking.  He writes:

Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction. In logic this is called a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality per se. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth. This confuses the epistemological question (the accurate knowledge of objective values) with the ontological question (the existence of objective values).

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality.

And in another article he writes:

Why can't somebody experience ethical guilt for something they're doing wrong in different cultures? Maybe morals are really relative. This is descriptive relativism. It entails that you can look at different cultures and find different ethical practices. How does one account for that if there is some absolute morality? It seems that morality is culturally determined.
Here is an observation that may help. It's a refinement, a distinction that will help make sense of some of that. For example, in India they used to practice "settee", which means that when a man died they would also kill the widow. They would bury the wife with the husband. They considered that moral, but we don't consider it moral in our country, so it seems to be a different value on human life.

The refinement that I'd like to offer you is the idea of the difference between facts and values. In India there was still the same value as in the United States that one should not murder. It is not open season on human beings in India. They believe that you should not murder and in our culture we believe you should not murder. That was the same value, but they had different notions of what murder entailed. For example, if you are attacked by somebody with a knife and you kill them, that would be a traumatic experience for you, but you would not have a sense of ethical guilt because you did not murder that person. You killed in self-defense. Therefore, in our culture we are taught that killing in self-defense is not inappropriate or ethically wrong. Having said that, we are not making it open season on everyone because there are certain conditions in which killing is not murder. Those are the facts of killing in our culture. In the same way, in India killing by settee was not considered murder. It was considered a gracious thing to do given certain circumstances.

The reason that I make this distinction is because a lot of times the apparent differences of moralities in different cultures is really not a difference in values but a difference in facts, a difference in how they view certain circumstances. I don't think any culture thinks that child abuse is good, but some cultures are rougher on their children than others. They don't consider that particular roughness an example of abuse. That may help in terms of the distinction of the cultures.

Even so there still is that moral machine and what I'm replying to is not making an argument based on a standard morality that everyone has. I'm responding not so much to the content of morality as to the machinery of morality. We have that moral machine in there. What compels us to think in moral categories? That's an example of the image of God in man. We may put different things in those categories, but the fact is that we have the machinery to begin with. It appears that no other creature has that machinery and that's what I appeal to, so I don't have to argue for a blanket morality that everyone has. I go one step deeper than that and say even with the difference, and there may be explanations like facts and values for those differences (it's also possible to singe our conscience, if you will), beyond that, let's take the fact of moral machinery. How does one explain that from an evolutionary, physicalist, naturalist perspective?

This is a fact about humankind that we are all well aware of that is very well explained by a Christian view of the world.

Tolerance and Moral Neutrality

Greg Koukl:

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance. An articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, in a piece called "Self-Definition: Morality":

"Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child. But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do—and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

My parents' morals were deeply rooted in religious conviction but tempered by tolerance—the essence of which is respect for other people's views. They taught me that reasonable people may differ on moral issues, and that fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order.

I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy. I hope the tolerance and respect I show her as a parent is reinforced by the work she sees me doing every day: fighting for the right of all individuals to make their own moral decisions about childbearing.

Seventy-five years ago, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to liberate individuals from the "mighty engines of repression." As she wrote, "The men and women of America are demanding that . . . they be allowed to mold their lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state but as their conscience and judgment may dictate."

I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality: It's tyranny. It's unfair, and it's un-American."

That is impressively and persuasively written, one of the finest expressions of this view available in the space of five short paragraphs. It sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there's a fundamental flaw.

Read the rest.  

Preacher, Beware of Doing This

Greg Koukl:

Why is it that there’s so much Biblical illiteracy in the church? Certainly the Bible is taught, and by well-meaning people who care about the Bible. But still people are ill equipped, it seems, to understand the nature of reality as characterized by the foundational pieces of the Christian worldview, to understand the scope of the Biblical message, and be able to explain it.

Though I think pastors are working very hard, I don’t think they’re always working smart theologically. There’s a habit that pastors have when they go to a text with the idea of teaching the Bible. They have a notion in mind already that they want to teach, so they find a phrase or a verse in the Bible that seems to substantiate it. So they’re not really teaching the Bible. They’re just teaching an idea that may be their personal view, and may be a very useful idea, and they’re trying to give legitimacy to it through the Scriptures. But they’re not teaching what the Bible teaches because they’ve pulled a verse out of the text to support the lesson.

Here’s the problem: Even though they’re teaching a Biblical text, they’re actually prooftexting. They’re taking the passage or the phrase and they make a metaphor out of it, and then they teach the metaphor rather than teach the passage.

I’ll give you an illustration of this. It’s the one that’s probably most common, and you will recognize it immediately. It’s from the Gospels where Jesus calms the storm. The disciples are rowing the boat across the middle of the Sea of Galilee. They’re getting spun to and fro by the wind, pitching every which way. They’re in fear of capsizing and perishing, and they cry out to the Lord, “Don’t you care that we’re perishing?” And Jesus wakes up, because He’s asleep in the stern, and He rebukes the storm and everything goes perfectly calm. Then He rebukes His disciples.

Tell me what the message is that is based upon that text. What is the message probably most frequently taught from that passage? What are the storms in your life that Jesus can calm? In other words, the storm calmed by Jesus, even if we acknowledge that it’s a real historical fact, shows us that there are “storms” in our lives that Jesus can calm.

I can say with good authority that that is not the point of the text. You may be teaching something really helpful to people. You might even be teaching something that is true in itself in isolation. But you are not teaching the text. What you have done is read a historical account as a metaphor to be applied metaphorically in our lives. But that’s not what the writer of the text intended. How do I know that? Because the writer of that text does not make that application.

When you read the text, what do you find? Jesus calming the storm, as I just described, and then the disciples responding. What you don’t see is the disciples saying, “Jesus just calmed the storm. I wonder what storms in my life Jesus could now calm.” No, you don’t see them reflecting in that way at all because that is not the way they understood what they just witnessed.

What do the disciples say? They say, “‘Who is this man who commands even the forces of nature?’ And they fell on their face and they worshipped him.”

That shows us the reason that this account is in the text. It is not to tell us something about how God can fix our lives; it is meant to tell us something about Jesus. And if you are not teaching that, then you are not teaching the text, even though you’re using the text in your teaching.

Read the rest.

Show your concern over "real" babies?

Today Neil Steinberg has given us a great opportunity to learn how to interact with those who would support abortion on demand in our country. Using tactics I have learned from Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf, let's walk through Neil's column.

It starts off rather nobly with him appealing to and supporting the "Safe Haven" law in the state of IL.  This law says that if a mother wants to abandon her child she has 30 days to do it, no questions asked, at a place like a fire station or hospital.  I would fully support this law and would add my church to the list.  Better to have these babies given up into safe hands than found in a dumpster somewhere.

But then the author senses the inconsistency in his argumentation because of his pro-abortion stance.  He writes:

The clattering sound you hear is dozens of anti-abortion activists pounding away at their keyboards. "Dear Stinkberg," they write, "how can you even pretend to care about babies when you approve of women murdering their children in the uterus?? Please see the attached 12 color photographs of aforementioned diced children . . . ."

And the answer -- not that they are interested in an answer, but let's pretend -- is that I, like most Americans, differentiate between actual, born-and-alive-in-the-real-world-now babies and the fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence that typically gets aborted.

I am glad to add to the "clattering sound".

First of all, it is important to note that it is faulty to assume that most aborted babies are the size of "the period at the end of this sentence".  Notice that he doesn't give any sort of evidence to back up this claim.  He simply asserts it.  Click here to see the stages of fetal development and what a baby might look like at six, eight, or twelve weeks which is a common stage for abortion.

But then it must be asked, "Is size a means by which we determine value?"  He appeals to size when he says "...the size of the period at the end of this sentence."  Shouldn't the greater question be, "Is it human?"  If the answer is yes, it is human, then size does not matter does it?  My daughter Mya is much smaller than me at the age of 18 months. Should this mean that I have greater value than her?

Again, we see here and in many conversations with abortion advocates that one could have, that almost every reason given for the support of legalized abortion assumes that the baby in the womb is not human.  But then we have a problem.  What are the reasons that they give for assuming it is not human?  This author lists size as a reason but we all know that is a horrible way to try and determine true humanity.

He continues:

Caring for actual babies is hard, and the state struggles to find enough foster homes to park them in. That's another reason why people gin up this outsized concern for other people's non-babies: It's easy. You can stand in the street holding a 5-foot photo of a tiny bloody foot, call it a day, tell yourself you've saved a lot of babies, when in reality you haven't changed one diaper. Merely professed your undying concern for proto babies, which hardly exist, and ignored a bunch of baby babies, who most certainly do exist and could use your help. And you felt morally superior to boot. Congrats.

I would like to ask Neil for the criteria he uses to diffentiate between real and uh... "non-real" babies.  If they are "non-real" what are they?  What does "non-real" mean?  He has not given us anything other than size as a basis for this reasoning.

Since the "state struggles to find enough foster homes" does that mean we should murder some babies in the womb to make it easier on the state?  Just because our infrastructure is lacking does that mean we should jump to the slick and easy solution of killing to deal with the problem.  The logic doesn't add up.  Who else are we going to bump off because they are a drain on society? Why stop with those who are in the womb?  Again, if he were to admit that these were humans in the womb then he would never advocate for this position.

His final comment:

Respect for life means respecting those who are actually alive, even if they make decisions that go contrary to your personal religious scruples. It's a tough-to-grasp concept, I know, particularly if you don't even try to understand.

Why does he assume babies in the womb are not "actually alive"?  Again he gives no reasons and should be challenged here.  In my mind this is a bit of a no brainer.  The baby is clearly growing in the womb.  Things that grow are alive.  This is biology 101.

This is not an argument about "religion".  Religion has nothing to do with it and it just a way to try and brush off those who would disagree with him.  This is about defining the boundaries of murder.  We don't claim that murdering a toddler has anything to do with religion.  It is against the law and for good reason.  What is the difference between a toddler and the unborn?

Neil's argument is easy to engage in order to flesh out the faulty reasoning behind the pro-abortion stance. I pray this short interaction will help you in conversations you may have in the future concerning these matters.

"If Only I Could See A Miracle With My Own Eyes... Then I Would Believe"

Greg Koukl responds to this idea:

The skeptic says, “If Jesus would only show Himself to me—if God would just work one dramatic miracle—then I’d believe in Him.” This kind of person overestimates himself. Even miracles can be denied or dismissed.

During Jesus’ passion week in Jerusalem, he was called to nearby Bethany because his friend Lazarus was dying. By the time Jesus arrived, Lazarus was gone. In a dramatic scene Jesus called him forth from the tomb alive, still wrapped in burial cloths.

This was a spectacular miracle performed in public for all to see. What was the response of the Jewish leaders? They plotted Jesus’ death. "This man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:47-48)

But Jesus wasn’t the only one they wanted to eliminate. They also had to get rid of another piece of evidence: "But the chief priests took council that they might put to death Lazarus also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus." (John 12:10-11)

Incredible! Instead of falling to their knees in response to this obvious display of Messianic power, they conspire to kill the very man whose public resurrection was proof positive of their error.

This is unbelievable unbelief.

You think if God just did a miracle it would change your rebellious heart? Don’t count on it. Jesus said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

As one wag put it, a skeptic with such an experience would not seek God, he’d seek a psychiatrist.

Oh so true. The sun melts butter…but it hardens clay.

“The Bible Was Only Written by Men...and Men Make Mistakes.”

Greg Koukl:

First, it doesn’t follow that because the Bible’s written by men, that it therefore must be in error. Human error is possible, not necessary. If human error were always necessary in anything man said, this challenge would be self-refuting (“suicide tactic”). If all human claims were necessarily in error, then the claim that the Bible was written by men and men make mistakes would also be in error because it’s a claim made by men who err, defeating itself. It is possible for human beings to produce something without errors. It’s done all the time. What is 2+2? What is the formula for nuclear fission?

Read the rest.  

Who Are You To Judge?

Greg Koukl:

Columnist and blogger James Lileks wrote, “I return to the Kirk Doctrine, expressed in the Star Trek episode 'The Conscience of the King.' He has passed judgment on a suspected tyrant, and the dictator’s daughter asks ‘Who are you to judge?’ ‘Who do I have to be?’ Kirk snaps.”

Judging can't be avoided.  We all do it.  And we should.  The ideas of reform and improvement presuppose making judgments about right and wrong, superior and inferior.

If you want to have meaningful moral discussions, the nature of a moral discussion is to look at an action and judge it.  That’s what it means to have moral conversations.  It’s to look at ourselves, people around us, or cultural trends or the conduct of people in government, and ask whether this is good conduct.  Should we approve of such conduct or not? 

So it’s not possible to have a meaningful moral discussion that actually has a goal of making a better person or a better country without speaking in judgmental terms.  It’s part of the nature of having moral discussions.  We have to be capable of saying that some actions are better and others are worse if we’re going to have any real discussions about virtue and morality in a way that results in moral improvement, whether that's individual or corporate reform. 

Who Are You To Say?

 Greg Koukl:

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

"That's Just Your Interpretation"

The "that's just your interpretation" parry when you make a biblical point is usually vulnerable to Taking the Roof Off.  Use the first Columbo question ("What do you mean by that?") to find out if the person thinks all interpretations are equally valid and yours is just another in an infinite line of alternatives.

If you suspect that this is his view, Take the Roof Off.  Treat his own words as infinitely malleable.  Tell him, for example, that you are sorry to hear that he believes all Jews and homosexuals should be executed.  When his jaw drops, tell him that's your interpretation of what he said.  Does he have a problem with that?

Don't leave him hanging, though.  Clarify your point:  Some interpretations are better than others.  If the person you are talking with thinks you have distorted the Scripture, then invite him to show you the error, not dismiss you with this weak response.

- Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, p. 155

"Modified Pro-Choice" = Political Double-Talk

The modified pro-choice position is a politician's favorite abortion double-talk:  "I'm personally against abortion, but I don't believe in forcing my view on others."

I once had a discussion with  a man who offered this nonsense to me at a conference.  I asked him the question I always pose when I encounter such a notion:  "Why are you personally against abortion?"

He responded with the answer I always get. "I believe abortion kills a baby," he said, "but that's just my own personal view."

"Let me see if I understand you, " I said.  "You are convinced that abortion kills an innocent child, yet you think the law should allow women to do that to their own babies.  Did I get that right?"

He objected to my wording, but when I asked him what part of his view I misunderstood, he was silent.  I hadn't misunderstood it.  That was his view.

The logic of the modified pro-choice position reduces to, "I think it's wrong to kill my own children, but I don't think we should stop other people from killing theirs."

- Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, p. 154, 155

Trotting Out The Toddler

Virtually every argument in favor of abortion could equally justify killing newborns if pressed to its logical conclusion.  If it's acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being on one side of the birth canal, why forbid it on the other?  A 7-inch journey cannot miraculously transform a "nonhuman tissue mass" into a valuable human being.

When someone justifies abortion by saying, "Women have the right to choose," use a version of Taking the Roof Off called "Trotting Out the Toddler."  Ask if a woman should have the right to kill her one-year-old for the same reason.  Since both are human beings, the same moral rule should apply to each.  The logic of choice, privacy, and personal bodily rights endangers newborns, not just the unborn.

At the University of New Mexico, a student said we should abort children to save them from future child abuse.  Stand to Reason speaker Steve Wagner "trotted out the toddler" in response.  "Should we also kill two-year-olds to save them from future child abuse?"

"I hadn't thought about that," the student said.  And that's the point.  People don't think about the logical implication of their ideas.  It's our job to help them see their mistakes.

- Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, p. 151

The Chalk And The Atheist Professor

The story is told of an atheist philosophy professor who performed a parlor trick each term to convince his students that there is no God. "Anyone who believes in God is a fool, " he said. "If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking.  Such a simple task to prove he is God, and yet he can't do it." The professor then dropped the chalk and watched it shatter dramatically on the classroom floor.

If you meet anyone who tries this silly trick, take the roof off. Apply the professor's logic in a test of your own existence.  Tell the onlookers you will prove you don't exist.

Have someone take a piece of chalk and hold it above your outstreatched palm.  Explain that if you really exist, you would be able to accomplish the simple task of catching the chalk.  When he drops the chalk, let it fall to the ground and shatter.  Then announce, "I guess this proves I do not exist.  If you believe in me, you're a fool."

Clearly, this chalk trick tells you nothing about God.  The only thing it is capable of showing is that if God does exist, he is not a circus animal who can be teased into jumping through hoops to appease the whim of foolish people.

- Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, p.150, 151

The Fallacy of Expert Witness

Andy Naselli reports on a very helpful section from Greg Koukl's new book, Tactics. He writes:

One of the most helpful chapters is entitled “Rhodes Scholar.” It’s one of eight chapters in part 2, which is devoted to finding flaws in arguments. In order to discern if an appeal to an authority is legitimate or if it commits the fallacy of expert witness, Koulk crisply distinguishes between information and education:

The ["Rhodes Scholar"] tactic hinges on the difference between informing and educating. When an article tells you what a scholar believes, you have been informed. When an article tells you why he holds his view, you have been educated.

Here is why this distinction is so important. If you recall from chapter 4, an argument is like a house whose roof (what a person believes) is supported by walls (the reasons why he believes). You cannot know if the reasons are adequate to the conclusions—if the walls are strong enough to hold the roof—unless you know what those reasons are. If you know the reasons, you can assess them. Without them, you’re stonewalled.

Popular articles always inform, but almost never educate. As a result, you have no way of evaluating a scholar’s conclusion. You simply have to take his word for it. But scholars can be wrong, and often are. Their reasoning can be weak, their facts can be mistaken, and bias can distort their judgment. (pp. 167–68)

The key, Koukl aruges, is simple: “Always ask for reasons. Don’t settle for opinions” (p. 168).

So how should we evaluate whether we should believe a expert’s opinion? Koukl suggests two ways.

[1]The scholar may be in a special position to know the facts. However, if an authority is in possession of special information that guides his counsel, then he should be able to point to that evidence to convince us he’s on the mark.

Sometimes authorities give opinions that are outside of their area of expertise. . . .

In a court of law, the expert witness is always cross-examined. Credentials alone are not enough to certify his testimony; he must convince a jury that his reasons are adequate. . . .

[2] Sometimes a scholar is in a unique position to render a judgment. More than mere facts are in play here. Interpretation is needed.

In this circumstance, you face another pitfall. A scholar’s judgment may be distorted by underlying philosophical considerations that are not always on the table. . . .

Sometimes one’s destination is predetermined by where one starts. (pp. 168–69)

I have been listening to Greg's talk show, Stand to Reason (podcast here), in recent days and would highly recommend his show and this book! He will help you think through how to winsomely engage with those who don't see Christ as worthy to be trusted.

Abortion Changes You

STR.org:

Greg had a really riveting interview yesterday with Michaelene Fredenburg from Abortion Changes You. She talked about the important, but often denied, fact that women who have abortions are never the same. There are far-reaching consequences to having an abortion. And not just for the woman - and the baby, of course. Boyfriends, husbands, parents, siblings, friends, children all are affected, and the story she told was very moving and enlightening. It was an important call to bring grace to those who've been changed by an abortion. It's not only about politics or morality; it is also about people and their lives.

Michaelene also shared some of the response they've gotten from their NYC subway ads "Abortion Changes You" and it's really amazing how God has used these billboards to reach people who are hurting. Their website has many other personal stories.

Michaelene brought attention to a side of being pro-life that doesn't always get as much attention as the public debate, and a method that is important for all pro-lifers to incorporate into how we engage people.

You can find the podcast here. If you are not familiar with the Stand to Reason podcast, you should give a shot for a week or two. I have found it very engaging and enlightening.