"Don't read apologetics. It's bad for your understanding of the field, and I honest to God believe it's bad for your soul."

This quote is from NT scholar, Duke University PhD candidate, and Christian, Ian Mills. With fellow NT scholar, PhD candidate, and Christian, Laura Robinson, they host a scholarly review podcast New Testament Review.

In 2019, they began their podcast by saying they would be reviewing Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" but - April Fools! Of course they would not be reviewing an unscholarly work (this episode is no longer on their playlist)! But a year later, they decided to go ahead and review the book "as if it were NT scholarship", and this podcast is the result.

Ian and Laura's summary:

"This book is not what it says it is."

"This book will make you dumber. No matter how much you already know about the NT and NT scholarship, you will almost certainly know less by the time you finish this book. It is profoundly deceptive and misrepresenting not only the sources but also the state of NT scholarship and even the positions of other NT scholars."


This post could have been made as an entry in the RGT article thread, but I am interested in the thoughts of those Christians that elevate books like Strobels, and how this scathing review affects their position on the book, and the kind of very popular apologetics it proposes in general.

I listened to the first half of the podcast (then I had to run off and do something), and I generally agree with what I heard.

I used to be far more interested in apologetics, but I ultimately decided that it's not that interesting and not that effective for communicating about faith.

One of the contemporary challenges of those books is that they were written to a particular time to a particular audience. The questions that were being asked at the time are not the questions that are being asked today. In some ways, Christianity was looking for reassurance in modernist thinking as the culture was moving in a postmodern direction. I seem to recall a lot of fussing over religious postmodernity in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Ultimately, I think the minds at the time felt they were battling for "the truth" and the apologists of the time were focused on narrow questions and issues, which led to weak responses to the changing questions in the world around them.

I do not know when it came into prominence, but I definitely remember that proof-texting was pretty common to the apologetics of the time. I seem to recall a lot of verse-chasing in the stuff that I read. Those might be the practices that are being referred to in the claim that "it's bad for your understanding of the field." I would not at all be surprised if the academic apologists were doing something completely different compared to the average Christians. (I honestly don't know that much about academic Christian apologetics.)

I discovered Ian and Laura from Pinecreek's YouTube channel (atheist channel I listen to) - Laura was properly interviewed a couple of times, and Ian once.

Ian's explanation for being a Christian is almost shockingly refreshing - greatly oversimplified, he just likes the idea of it (Pinecreek goes on to ask how that leads to believing something is true, and it meanders from there). I always find it interesting that academics and scientists standards change drastically when they switch from explaining their vocation standards to their faith.

In contrast, Laura in her main episode, seemed to want to provide a much more rational explanation for her faith. Given how well she explained that historians can say nothing about the supernatural, she really stumbled over herself (imo) in justifying her faith, in contrast to Ian.

You might find these interviews more interesting than the NT Review one, Ian's especially (I'd be curious whether you saw any of yourself in his responses). It's a lot to listen to though, but if you have time on your hands (or have you been teaching online over the past couple of months?).





I don't know if you saw any of the comments between me and Lagtight, but I had pointed out that current apologetics are post hoc, arguments that have no relation with why the apologist is a Christian. This isn't limited to the popular apologists like Strobel and, who's that Cold Case Christianity detective/author, J Warner Wallace.

No, even for academic apologists like William Lane Craig who has devoted much of his professional life to the Kalam 'argument', but that's not why he's a Christian.

So apologetics is really for those who already believe.



The Case for Christ was 1998 (older than I remembered), but it was made into a film just a couple of years back (2017?) - and from what I heard, it was very close to the original text.

Cold Case Christianity was more recent, (2013) and the author, along with Strobel, made appearances in the epic blockbuster Gods Not Dead 2 (2016).

So the audience for this kind of apologetics seems to still be there, perhaps even growing (a rather particular audience, but still). I think your "looking for reassurance" observation is on point, which would explain why there is still a large market.


I got my hands on one of NT Wright's massive tomes a few years ago, can't remember which title. Very dense work, and I didn't get very far before losing interest. But while the contents were world's apart from the pair of Case works above, intellectually and academically, looking back it still strikes me as post hoc, rather than "here's why you should start to believe this".

Wright has written tons of books. (One critic suggested that Wright has written more books than he has read.)

Only one of those books that I'm aware of is of the "here is why you should believe" type.

Most of his books are about textual criticism , I believe.

Regarding apologetics, here is a famous quote (paraphrase):

"For the faithful no argument is required, for the skeptic no argument is sufficient."*

*NOT a quote from Wright.

Here is another interesting quote (paraphrase):

"While there is no rational argument for theism, there is likewise no non-theistic argument for rationality."

I had barely even heard a peep about it. I found a piece of a review from Christianity Today. The rest is behind a paywall, but you can get a sense of its reception from one of the available paragraphs:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-clincher.html

So I think that's at least some indication that the general reception wasn't great except for those who were already completely sold on the idea that this would be a great movie.

I had barely even heard mention of Cold Case Christianity, and I have not heard many positive statements about "God's Not Dead" other than from Christians who already suffer from the persecution complex (which is actually a nontrivial number). Again, Christianity Today addressed it:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...ical-itch.html

Again, paywall. But it seems to be setting up the argument that this is really just another film that panders to a specific audience. There's also a review by Michael Gerson (evangelical writing in the Washington Post) that basically says the movie is junk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9dd_story.html

Yes and no. Yes, there are certainly Christians that are in that space. But no, I don't think it's as mainstream as it was a couple decades ago. Much in the same way the atheism of the four horsemen really isn't a thing, but there are still people out there that think and behave that way.

Do you remember which book? He's written a lot. Maybe "Simply Christian"? I don't think it was written with the mindset of "Why you should start to believe." But it's been a while since I've read it.

I don't want debate much but did find some tidbits that may interest someone:

Lee Strobel wrote a reply to the podcast that laughed at his book. https://leestrobel.com/reply He seemed pretty hurt by being called dishonest.

In the movie Case for Christ 2017, the character Lee Strobel , who is atheist at the time. says to his wife:
"You're cheating on me... with Jesus!"

Surprisngly, the Islamic Quran agrees that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven by God.

It would be amusing if I was able to find another CT editor making the opposite claim some time earlier (a la Trump article)


Right, it'll be very group dependent. I think Lagtight (just for example, and who this thread was generally aimed at) might have the perspective that these kinds of apologetics come highly recommended and are influential in evangelical / fundamentalist circles, whereas more mainstream (or some better label) Christianity will be unsurprised at the conclusions of the NT Review.



Yeah, I found it: The Resurrection of the Son of God. All I remembered from the first chapter was Wright's use of "history's arrows" that I think he's used elsewhere. But Wright might not be the best example of the topic after all.

Yes, a it's well known quote that at face value, supports the position apologetics has no genuine audience, something you seem to agree with, to some degree.

"no rational argument for theism" - is that also your position?

"no non-theistic argument for rationality" - perhaps you'll consider returning to your thread on the topic where you were asked to support the claim that "Christianity alone can 'account for logic'" (but not here pls).

I don't agree with either quote.

I thought that both quotes were relevant to the thread, given that they both were said by Christians.

I DO concur with the observation that many Christians provide evidence supporting Christianity that wasn't part of their personal journey to faith.

By coincidence, YouTuber Pinecreek just posted the following clip comparing academic NT Wright with prosperity televangelist Paula White. Their link? Speaking in tongues.



NTW: "I think there's a sort of fear and rationalism sometimes".


eta: regarding speaking Hindustani on a crowded bus, this would be my position.

Something else NT Wright and Paula White have in common - believing Jesus is God. I'm not a fan of exotifying religious beliefs or practices. If some religious practice/belief is false or evil, say so, but the point-and-laugh thing is mostly about activating people's prejudices and biases.

I wouldn't have much in common with him or agree with him on much, but NT Wright's tome on Paul is definitely one of the most impressive works of religious scholarship I've ever read, and very interesting, even as an atheist.

I would not be surprised if there was some point in that interview that wasn't shown (perhaps right before the beginning cut) where there was some clarification on the question of whether he thinks everyone who claims to speak in tongues is actually speaking in tongues.

Even if it wasn't, there is plenty of reason to accept that statement and to believe that he would accept it. This is no different from saying that it's possible to affirm the belief that "God speaks to people" without having to affirm that every schizophrenic that claims to hear from God is actually hearing from God.

I'm not a big fan of mocking people (perhaps some exceptions). Do you think I was mocking NT Wright? Or the linked video was mocking NT Wright?

Pinecreek takes the topic seriously, it is not a "point-and-laugh" channel, though he can be lighthearted with clip videos like this - and often he'll state in the description "this clip, taken out of context...". I thought the point was quite clear: Paula White, a controversial figure even among Christians, a wealthy prosperity gospel televangelist who gave the invocation at Trump's inauguration and is supposedly his spiritual advisor, in contrast to NT Wright, a universally respected academic scholar. As well as their shared "believing Jesus is God" (more on that below), it turns out that they also share the belief of speaking in tongues, more common among Pentecosts I believe, but still a somewhat less common belief.

Beliefs are not all the same, I don't understand this comment at all, I think the clip was clear. Let's say NT Wright had turned out to also believe that he was supernaturally protected from venom, or that his children should not have blood transfusions, I think we would (and should) have been even more surprised and shocked that this particular person held those beliefs. NT Wright is professing a belief that even many other Christians are skeptical about.

This is the part I was focusing on in my comment. Yes, it was a funny coincidence that NT Wright was mentioned last week by the channel that presented the NT Review scholars in my OP, and it was roughly on topic. But there is also a point that I had brought up earlier, that Christians who are scientists, academics etc, often abandon their training in skepticism and rational thinking when it comes to their faith *.

Here are NT Wright's exact words: "I do know people, I have met people, who have found themselves strongly lead to speak in tongues on a crowded bus, and somebody comes up to them and says "how come you speak fluent Hindustani" or whatever it is. I have no doubt that that happens. I have no reason to doubt the people who tell me it happens."

That last sentence is a total abandonment of skepticism. No reason?! None whatsoever?! They couldn't have made some sounds that are similar to Hindustani or whatever, maybe even identical to Hindustani or whatever? And they were told this, but the story evolves slightly to the more impressive complete fluency? This idea, or any natural explanation, isn't even on the radar, versus the supernatural gift of tongue.

I would like to find out whether he really means this, or whether he was exaggerating his position, because it describes such gullible thinking. But he did say it, and the video is out there, presumably with his blessing.


No point-and-laugh.



* Something I expect many would say that is necessary for their faith

The interview is linked in the video description iirc. The clip begins "I see speaking in tongues and I don't know whether some or all gifts of tongues are purely angelic tongues or purely different kinds of human tongues", before going on to the comment I analysed above.


While I would dispute there is plenty of reason to accept that statement, NT Wright said there is no reason not to accept it.


If the interview was an honest one, he could have asked to restate what he said, but instead we have what was shown.

I admit I don't much about this, but the nonlexical vocalization in this video seems appreciated and accepted by most people. It doesn't seem that much different from glossolalia (speaking in tongues).

Okay. But that does not affirm that all utterances are speaking in tongues.

That does not appear to be the plain reading of his words. He's not declaring all utterances to be gifts of tongues.

Indeed. Human tongues might be his polite way of saying people who are faking, but it's not exactly clear.

I'm only talking about the occasions he is considering to be real (I don't think it's a stretch to presume that he would say some ppl are sometimes faking, though I wonder how someone would be able to differentiate?).

So, the criticism is that he declares NO reason to doubt those occasions that he thinks are real.

No, I didn't think you were mocking Wright; I meant to refer to the video. I'm familiar enough with your posting to trust that you are fair and serious in how you treat those with whom you disagree.

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with Pinecreek. My impression is Pinecreek thought saying that even Christian intellectual NT Wright is irrational because he rejects cessationism and sometimes speaks in tongues during private prayer wasn't strong enough, so an unpopular Trump-adjacent grifter-type speaking in tongues was spliced into Wright's comments to provide negative emotional coloring to his words. The fact that Paula White also believes in tongues neither adds nor detracts from the rationality of NT Wright's belief in tongues, so this splice adds nothing to the intellectual force of Pinecreek's argument, but rather is meant to add a pathos element to his video.

I agree of course that we should not treat all religious beliefs the same. However, I think you are wrong about what our priors should be regarding Christian belief here. Snake handling is rare in Christianity (this article says there are only a bit more than 125 churches in the US that practice it) and it is illegal in most of the country.

Meanwhile, AFAIK, only Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientists oppose blood transfusions. JW's are considered a heretical sect by most traditional Protestants (they reject the Trinity) and Christian Science is tiny. On the other hand, Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians (who will nearly all agree that Christians can speak in tongues today) make up 27% of Christians worldwide (and 36% in the US).

So just as a matter of demographics, we should be less surprised to find a Christian who accepts tongues than snake-handling, etc.

I also don't find this shocking from a theological perspective. Pentecostalism and charismatic theology has been around for over a century now and seem to me quite congruent with traditional Christian ideas. The Christian god is generally seen as active and engaged with the lives of Christians right now - there is no a priori reason for Christians to assume this can't take supernatural forms. Healing and speaking in tongues are examples of miracles seen in the Bible, why not suppose God still uses them today?

Furthermore, while snake handling and rejecting blood transfusion has a direct harm on people's health, any harmful effects of speaking in tongues are indirect.

I guess. The prior probability of someone suddenly speaking a language they didn't previously know seems very low to me. But I also don't believe in a God that actively intervenes in people's lives, with a track record of doing this exact thing. If I did, then my prior for this happening would be much higher. Would it then irrational for me to think a credible report of this happening has a decent chance of being true? That is, is this this an error of reasoning or just bad priors? If the latter, then we are really just picking out a particularly weird (but mostly harmless) Christian belief to paint the entire belief structure as weird and strange.

I don't think so. The "gift of human tongues" he is referring to here is the miraculous ability to speak foreign human languages, as distinct from the "gift of angelic tongues" which is the miraculous ability to speak a divine language in communication with God. There is some debate about how distinct these gifts are (eg are they really miraculously speaking Hindustani, or are they speaking some divine language that is understandable to all?).

Fair enough. I think you are overreading this a bit - I think he means to express an attitude of openness towards believing credible reports of divinely speaking in foreign tongues, not that he is saying there is no reason to doubt such reports, but perhaps I'm being overly charitable.

Okay. But that's not what the implication of the video is.

In communities in which tongues are accepted, there's a process of interpreting them. If tongues are spoken in an individual prayer, then no interpretation is needed. But if tongues are spoken in public, then it should be brought to scrutiny. Speaking in tongues is not something to do for public display unless there is a purpose or value to the message that is brought. Otherwise, it's usually rejected.

I'm reminded of a joke that a friend told me:

At a particular church, there was a time during the service that was open for people to speak and prophesy based on the leading of the Spirit.

A person stood up to speak, but spoke in tongues. After they had finished, the pastor asked, "Is there anybody with an interpretation?" Silence. So they moved on with the rest of the service.

The next week, during the designated time, the same person rose again to speak. "Is there anybody with an interpretation?" Again, there was nothing. So they moved on with the rest of the service.

The following week, the same person rose and spoke again. But this time, the Pastor declared, "I have an interpretation: 'LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME!'" And they moved on with the rest of the service.

Edit: Whoops... skipped this:

No. This is just a reflection of your lack of knowledge of the topic. There is no usage of that term within Christianity to mean someone that's faking it. It's a reference to something akin to Acts 2. You may want to read the whole section to get a better context.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+2&version=NIV

Sure there is. Try kicking your toe into the wall, and you'll find plenty.

What I think this argument is actually trying to say is "there is no non-theistic argument which is theistic". Which is probably true, but far less exciting.

Quite so.

I noted in a later post that I did NOT necessarily agree with the quote.