Why Cultural Apologetics is Important Today

Why Cultural Apologetics is Important Today

In this episode of the Apologetics.com Radio, Dr. Harry Edwards, Dr. Jacob Daniel and Lenny Esposito discuss the special importance cultural apologetics plays in helping believers effectively reach out to a culture that is ambivalent towards the truth claims of Christianity.

Reengineering Society: How CRT is Aiming for our Children

Reengineering Society: How CRT is Aiming for our Children

Listen as Anthony Costello, Dr. Jacob Daniel and Dr. Harry Edwards discuss the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory and how a progressive agenda is shaping the identity of a younger generation in the United States.

Cancelling Cancel Culture

Cancelling Cancel Culture

In this episode of the Apologetics.com Radio Show, Lenny Esposito, Dr. Jacob Daniel, and Dr. Harry Edwards discuss in general disturbing aspects, factors and solutions of what is quickly becoming commonplace in the public square: Cancel Culture. Here we tackle undergirding philosophies of cancel culture, why it does not work and practical steps for the church to handle potentially divisive conversations.

Nationalism vs. Globalism: A Christian Response

Nationalism vs. Globalism: A Christian Response

On this episode, Dr. Harry Edwards leads a discussion on a growing trend among believers in the West called Christian nationalism and its rival, globalism. The show seeks to define these two types of allegiances and the implications for holding each view within the Christian context. On the panel are Dr. Jacob Daniel of Heritage Counsel and Mr. Lenny Esposito of Come Reason Ministries.


G.K. Chesterton once said, “When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude.” I try to avoid taking things for granted and in this particular case, my academic journey terminating with this dissertation would not have been realized were not for the help and encouragements from so many individuals. I would like to thank my mother, Anna Laura Edwards and my grandmother, Leonila Ison for grounding me in the knowledge and fear of our Lord, for allowing me space to question faith matters, and encouragement to find answers to deep questions. When it comes to making Scripture come alive, memorable, and awe-inspiring for me growing up in San Juan, Philippines, I tip my hat to my aunt, Dulce Johnston (Tita Dul). My elementary and high school years at Christian Academy of Manila weren’t particularly exciting, but as principal, Tita Fe (another aunt) made sure I completed my homework on time and instilled in me the importance of education. She was doggedly after the truth in all subjects and did not hesitate to admonish the teachers under her care who didn’t share the same scholastic tenacity.

The professors at Biola University were influential in fostering a theological inquisitiveness that has become part of my DNA. I am eternally grateful for each of them. Richard Leyda introduced me to the field of leadership studies, JP Moreland convinced me Christians are the smartest people in the world, Rob Bowman stoked my love of Jesus, Scott Smith assured me I can know that, and Kevin Lewis did not think I was a crank for pointing out the weaknesses of Molinism.

As iron sharpens iron, so have my friends at Apologetics.com sharpened my thinking in theology, philosophy, and apologetics. Richard Park is a true friend and I have spent an inordinate amount of time with him thinking of ways to change the world for Christ. Sam Welbaum, with his sprightly wit, took charge of our radio program for a time during a time when I couldn’t. Christopher Neiswonger and John Snyder put us on the podcasting map when podcasting was not even a thing. They were the dynamic duo of cultural apologetics that is unmatched even today. Andy Steiger legitimized our apologetics activities, making us an international entity by hosting us in Canada. Lindsay Brooks is the consummate discussion partner in all things relevant and important in culture today, a case study in winsome persuasion. These friends not only make me look smarter just by being around them, they carry on with grace, humility, and confidence that make Christianity attractive.

To my current ministry partners Jon Noyes and Jason Gallagher, you have made hosting our weekly radio program a joy and a blast. It’s an honor and a privilege sharing the hosting chair, defending the truth claims of Christianity on the airwaves of Los Angeles. Then there’s the inner circle of the fourth Friday (technically it’s Saturday) of each month: Lenny Esposito, a faithful ministry partner, always willing and able to cover my hosting duties when I’m indisposed, and Jacob Daniel who wondered why I didn’t start my doctoral aspirations sooner.

I do not have a mentor, at least in a traditional sense. But Os Guinness has assumed a good surrogate for me, especially during a time when I was intensely searching for the links between beliefs and behaviors. Through his books, talks, both public and private, I have appreciated and come to understand some of the genealogy of ideas, how relevant sociology is to theology, and what it means to behave as a model of civility in our time. Getting to know him personally emboldened me to pursue my doctorate.

The staff and faculty at Portland Seminary are partly responsible for the final outcome of this dissertation. Sarita Edwards, Jason Clark, and Clifford Berger, my esteemed dissertation advisors, made sure this project was fit for publication along with its attendant academic conventions. They deserve praise for helping me craft this rough written work into something laudable and useful for the church. Any errors are mine.

To my boys, Chase and Jonathan, for their ceaseless prayers to see their “Papa” complete this dissertation with excellence. To my dear and lovely wife, Minerva, for her invigorating support and staunch championing over the years, buoying me up until the day I finally cross the finish line of my doctoral journey. I could not have done it without family. Finally, to our Lord and Savior Jesus, the sine qua non of all that is true, good, and beautiful, and in whose presence I long to be.

The Rising of the Political Nones

We are living in unprecedented times. There seems to be a general world wide malaise affecting everyone concerned about the coronavirus. It’s all what people talk about. In a week’s time we went from smiling at silly memes like “Throwback Thursdays” to pandemonium as if the world was coming to an end. Wherever one may be in that spectrum, one thing is for sure: the world will never be the same.

For now, the frenzied strategy of protecting lives, especially the vulnerable which includes seniors and those with existing health issues is paramount. But before too long we will witness a barrage of acerbic exchanges between the political left and right about whose fault it was that the U.S. was ill-equipped to handle this global health crisis. Even right now there is social pressure to avoid using the politically incorrect term “Chinese virus” in referring to the coronavirus responsible for the disease COVID-19 rampaging the world. Welcome to identity politics.

Francis Fukuyama, author of Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment does a brilliant job of tracing the origins of our current political landscape which is mired in identity politics. Fukuyama argues that our political sense is ultimately grounded in the inner self being recognized. Society, he theorizes, will align themselves around groups which can mutually recognize and affirm one another’s identity.1 This identity, according to Fukuyama, is rooted in Emmanuel Kant’s understanding of one’s ability to make choices based on reason. Couple this with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of identity being premised on suppressed personal feelings and experiences, then one’s political aim becomes the “recovery of the authentic inner being, and society’s recognition of the potential that resided in each of its members.”2 Given human nature, Fukuyama thinks there simply is no avoiding identity politics.3 But it does not necessarily mean it’s a bad thing so long as citizens diligently work to preserve mutual respect for each other.

Political pundits in the United States may have to start rethinking the predominant attitude of voting along party lines. The recent rise of nationalist leaders, U.K. leaving the EU and the election of Donald Trump are disturbing the political status quo and may be a harbinger for the way an entire generation views politics. Take for example Trump’s political ascent to become the 45th president of the United States in 2016. Hardly anyone expected that outcome. What is even more surprising was the demographic that played a key role in swaying the election in Trump’s favor: 18 - 29-year olds; and they are now a larger percentage of voters than those over 65.4 How did this happen? According to GenZ expert Jean Twenge, one has to answer this question: What do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common? The answer: both are political independents.5 Twenge has observed party affiliation among GenZers is falling by the wayside and instead describe themselves as liberal, moderate or conservative. In the end Trump won over Hillary because members of GenZ thought his policies fit their worldview better.

Fukuyama is certainly correct in concluding that “identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate.”6 For a new generation it’s an identity that returns to the individual that is reluctant to affiliate with factions and follow their rules. They are weary about traditional partisan politics and the widening polarization in America. What they long for is authenticity and transparency in our institutions and government. I am no prophet but I have an optimistic feeling members of GenZ will make great attempts at changing the world for the better, and many will succeed.

A New Kind of Apologist

Rebecca McLaughlin’s book Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion is a breath of fresh air in the world of Christian Apologetics. It is refreshing in many ways but particularly for two reasons: (1) it is a written by a female; (2) with close ties to the UK Evangelical context. These reasons cannot be overstated in our current cultural milieu. In a YouTube interview McLaughlin mentioned the popular virtue today that says “who you are determines what you’re allowed to say.”1 Having struggled herself with same-sex attraction, this opens doors for her to be able to defend the truth claims of Christianity in settings typically dominated by straight white male. Conservatives, both politically and theologically might not appreciate the mitigation of these traditional blind spots. However, for those she is trying to reach with the Gospel, and its defense, this is an absolute game changer. Experts like McLaughlin and others such as the speaking team at Women in Apologetics2 will revolutionize the apologetics landscape of our churches in the coming years, especially when one considers the fact that more women than men claim to be church attenders and engage in other religious activities.3
The second reason McLaughlin’s contribution to apologetics is welcomed has to do with her background growing up in London. For decades the church has been told by academics that the UK and the rest of Europe is hopelessly secular. They would routinely remind us that secularization begins in the UK, travels to Canada, then the U.S. and then to the rest of the world, perhaps finally landing in the global south. McLaughlin is an outlier here and may be on to something. Perhaps the origins and bastions of secularization within the intellectual centers of Europe is abating and her book just might reveal a hopeful reversal.
McLaughlin’s most controversial4 chapter titled “Isn’t Christianity Homophobic?” is a gem because she writes from excellent primary sources, as well as her own personal struggles with same-sex attraction. There are plenty of experts who can pontificate about the perils, both from nature and Scripture, of the self-harm brought about by homosexual practices, but few can address this with insightful authority and provide practical knowledge on the matter.
One of the best heuristic takeaways from the chapter is the way she uses subversion to frame and deal with the question of homosexuality. She starts by saying:
“People sometimes say that the Bible condemns same-sex relationships. It does not. The Bible commands same-sex relationships at a level of intimacy that Christians seldom reach.”5
Stating it this way not only grabs one’s attention, it forces the reader to consider intently what God has to say about relationships in general and sexual ones specifically. To be clear McLaughlin believes the Bible unequivocally teaches that sexual intimacy belongs exclusively to heterosexual marriage. However, for those who have a different view, she invites them to consider the idea and benefits of boundaries which are not uncommon concepts in everyday life. While she herself is happily married with kids, she confesses that there is no guarantee that God could change her natural instinct to be drawn toward women. Apparently, sexual fluidity is more prevalent than initially thought and may persist over time in both men and women. Deploying new discoveries such as this helps lessen the stigma for whom homosexual tendencies is a struggle, allowing space for open dialog, transparency and counseling. This is helpful especially among 13 to 18 year-olds, only half of whom believe one’s sex at birth defines one’s gender; and one third says gender is “what a person feels like.”6
It is easy and regrettably far too common for Christians to judge homosexuals and cast their sin in some distinct dispensation meriting a special place in hell. It’s not true, it’s not biblical and serves to only besmirch the Christian witness. As Christian leaders we must continually remind ourselves that “heterosexuality is not the goal of the Christian life: Jesus is.”7

Trans Transformation

It has been several months now since my professor friend and I met for coffee at one of the coffee shops at Biola University. I often reflect on that sobering moment. We chatted about the latest goings on in culture as reflected in news outlets and social media, lamenting the fact that Evangelicalism today has increasingly appeared less relevant and more repugnant in modern society, especially in areas in which traditional moral values is the subject. It’s not just that progressives find Christian values outdated, ill-suited to modern times, they are incorrigibly incensed by their stance in public discourse.

My friend suggested that perhaps one of the reasons for such vehemence is a reaction against what believers did during the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 90s—which was nothing. “The church has been noticeably silent,” charged Earl E. Help and Ronald H. Sunderland, research fellows at the Texas Medical Center’s Institute of Religion. “The personal tragedies and social failures associated with the disease appear to have been ignored by the church—except for those strident segments that view AIDS as God’s retribution on sinful people.”1 Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, even blocked legislation givings basic rights to gay people.

Christian leaders in the 1980s and 90s were sanctimoniously watching AIDS victims die in the tens of thousands, offering no help. By God’s grace, the tide of criticism and disdain eventually turned and by the early 2000s, emergency plans for AIDS relief were set in motion saving millions. Thanks in part to efforts led by Kay and Rick Warren, evangelical leaders who had their own personal encounters with those suffering from HIV and AIDS.2 But could all this have been too little too late? Could this have been handled better by the church? I can imagine a gay friend saying to me “you judged us, you distanced yourself from us offering nothing while we were dying of AIDS, and now, all of a sudden you care?”

We are in a similar situation today. According to Barna Research, “GenZ, more than older generations, considers their sexuality or gender to be central to their sense of self.”3 Heather Brunkskell-Evans and Michele Moore, editors of Transgender Children and Young People: Born in Your Own Body confirm this trend. Contributing author Stephanie Davies-Arai reports a 1000% increase of adolescents being referred to the Tavistock gender clinic in London.4 Treatments there often are pursued based on political pressure to conform to the prevailing progressive idea that gender is whatever one feels. And if gender is indeed a matter of personal choice, then no one or no organization has the right to stop transexuals from obtaining disfiguring surgeries and lifelong hormone regiments. It’s too early to ascertain the effects of undergoing these treatments but common sense tells us that there ought to be “a serious public concern that practices of transgendering children involve the use of puberty suppression, cross-sex hormonal mediation that harms children’s reproductive capacity, their bodily integrity and future physical and psychological health, and possible surgery involving the amputation of penises and breasts that cannot be re-attached”5 be treated with extreme caution.

It is hoped that Christian leaders by now have learned the painful lessons of failure to care for the “least of these.” Will we idly watch our young gender dysphoric community suffer or will we be ready to help this time? The church can ill afford to miss this opportunity to demonstrate neighborly love. The stakes are too high. Doing what Jesus would do does not affirm the sin. Yes, we live in a complex and broken world, wracked by sin. But Scripture commands us to be imitators of our Lord who loved the lost while admonishing them to sin no more.6 Truth and grace always go together. The aphorism is true: “Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.”

Common Ground Apologetics

Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature argues that the popular idea that human beings are born sans innate properties is fallacious. Related concepts such as the Noble Savage and Ghost in the Machine fall under the same misunderstood categories that must be corrected. Pinker offers at least three reasons why this correction must take place: (1) Arguing for a Blank Slate distorts the nature of human beings and much research is guided by these false assumptions; (2) It has discredited logic, civility and common sense in the academy and beyond; (3) and finally, it has done harm to the lives of real people.1

These are valid concerns and if left unchecked we risk perpetuating the harm. For example, we tacitly believe that to raise the best children, parents must be loving and intentionally training them towards maturity. But if children do not turn out well then it must be the parent’s fault. However, this conclusion depends on the belief that children are blank slates.2 Parents and anyone who works with kids know this is not the case.

In one sense the opposite of a Christian is an atheist. Pinker is an atheist. In Evangelicalism today, especially in the rarified group of Christian apologists, the sine qua non measure of successful ministry seems to be about converting an atheist. The strategy appears to be a two-step process. First, create an atheist straw man with all his attending false ideas. Second, eviscerate him with the truth. This would be a good strategy if words posses magical powers on their own to transform people. No, it is more complex than that. In this case, an atheist reminds Christians of the pitfalls of sloppy thinking. Many times, an apologist’s zeal might lead them to blur the distinctions between “some” versus “all,” “probable,” versus “always,” “is” versus “ought.”3 Establishing clear distinctions is a mark of sound and valid thinking.

Instead of employing an “us” versus “them” mentality in apologetics engagement may I suggesting another way. What if apologists engaged the skeptic on their own turf? What if they used disarming language in their presentations that skeptics can relate to? I call this Common Ground apologetics. Common Ground apologetics seeks to establish commonality of first-order ideas with an interlocutor. From that base, arguments can be built upon. Examples of these fundamental ideas include aesthetics, ethics and agency.4 Pinker offers the faithful a few of these commonalities, specifically the blank slate. This is a point of connection. Scripture says that human beings are created in God’s image (Imago Dei). Pinker says this “image” is partly composed in the human genome structure. Both have a vision of humanity that does not invoke a blank slate. This is a significant win for both sides. If Christians and atheists can agree on certain items of knowledge regarding a first-order ideas such as human nature, then the chances of continued conversation increases.

The Christian worldview has exclusive claims. But it does not have to sound arrogant, pretentious and condescending which regrettably have become all too common. Analogies is another helpful tool to establish common ground. Instead of leading with an exclusive bent, consider the path to truth like a maze.5 What is helpful about the maze analogy is that it (1) places value on exploration and self-discovery; (2) it is careful not to understate or orverstate the claims of others since the different paths in a maze denote distinctions; and (3) at times some routes head in the same direction or run parallel to each other. First-order ideas such as human nature, soul, origins, purpose and things of the same nature, while may posses disparate grounding, do run parallel to each other at times. These are the opportunities of further discussion. Sometimes an apologist must learn to moderate their goals, especially in today’s polarized culture. Making the case for Christ sometimes may mean just enough effort in reasoning to be invited back to the table.

Where Is The Hope?

I am not quite sure how I feel about Steve Pinker’s Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. It was like riding a roller coaster for me. There is the thrill and edge-of-the-seat anticipation of ratcheting to the peak just before a heart stopping descent through the twist and turns, not knowing which way is up or down. Pinker does this by introducing supposed societal ills only to present counter arguments buttressed by facts. He does a wonderful job of showing that the world is indeed a better place since the Enlightenment and the evidence is unassailable.

However, just like the roller coaster analogy, there are the pivots and zigzags in Pinker that I have trouble understanding. For example, on the one hand he supports Kishore Mahbubani’s ideas in The Great Convergence1 that help explain the causes for worldwide progress: decline of communism, leadership, end of the Cold War, globalization, and science and technology. And yet on the other vilify Ronald Reagan as a “know-nothing.”2 Really? The person who was a significant influencer in two (decline of communism and end of the Cold War) out of the five factors leading to worldwide progress is someone to blame?

Be that as it may, what intrigued me about Pinker’s project is the effusive manner in which he wrote about all the positive indexes pointing to the fact that we live in a better world. Human progress in areas of health, food, wealth, inequality, the environment, peace, safety, equal rights, terrorism, democracy, quality of life and other measurable indicators of progress all have good trajectories pointing to an optimistic view of the future. But he had to pause and backpedal a bit when it came to the happiness index in the United States. Apparently studies show that happiness increases with a nation’s wealth.3 Countries such as Denmark and Singapore report outsized levels of happiness compared with countries having weaker economic growth.4 The United States is a country with a strong economy and is wealthy by all accounts. But the United States reports a lower level of happiness in relation to its wealth. “Whatever the reason, happyologists agree that the United States is an outlier from the global trend in subjective well-being.”5

Why is the United States an outlier on the happiness index? That is good question and worth exploring. But I’ll have to save that for another time. For now what intrigues me is the idea of hope. There were several missed opportunities for the author to connect the idea of a future-looking human flourishing with hope. But he did not. Sure he would begin sentences with a trivial “I hope to show….” or “I can give you no hope….” but that is far different than the kind of hope intrinsic to humanity. This is not the “pie in the sky, bye and bye” kind of hope where one rails against reality to escape it. Rather, it is the mature hope that C.S. Lewis talks about in Mere Christianity; the kind that looks longingly to a future eternal world. Lewis says this is not a form of escapism or simple wishful thinking.

In a world without hope Pinker is clear, that if all of the advances in knowledge, peace, safety, democracy, rights have left us no happier but just lonelier and suicidal, that it would be history’s greatest joke on humanity. And clearly suicide is a final solution that is diametrically opposed to happiness. But is history a jokester? Is the field of study called history even blameworthy? What is humanism’s response if humans are ending their own lives? The sad reality is, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reporting that the suicide rate for people aged 10 to 24 increased by 56% between 2007 to 2017. Suicide is now the 2nd leading cause of death among members of Gen Z. Studies show drastic changes in outlook of life among teens, all pointing to an all time low. Jean Twenge says teens today are “on the verge of the most severe mental health crisis for young people in decades.”6

Gen Z is not happy and yet hope remains illusive. Humanism’s answer is to hope in humans. But that is no hope. The Humanist Manifesto III from 2003 proudly affirms that humans are “the result of unguided evolutionary change.”7 That is like saying “I’m hoping to visit the Cotswolds” but without a map, means, or the ability to ask for directions. After all it is “unguided.” Gen Zers are smarter than that but they need to know there is a better way. On the topic of human progress, Lewis says “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next.”8 Gen Z’s hope must be directed heavenward. It is a strange rule, Lewis says, but “Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in;’ aim at earth and you will get neither.”9