Why Do People Leave Christianity? Apologetics, Deconstruction & the Power of Listening

Cameron (00:01)

Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co host, Cameron McAllister.

Nathan (00:05)

And I'm your co host, Nathan Rittenhouse.

Cameron (00:07)

I've been thinking about a certain video that of of William Lane Craig, the philosopher William Lane Craig, that has inspired some some anger in online circles. And you can look this up, of course, you can you can go into all the details, but essentially what's happening is he's arguing that a lot of people who walk away from the faith do so mainly for moral reasons. So

To be clear, he's talking specifically about people who had formally identified themselves as Christians and who then walked away from the church. And so he's saying that this is usually for moral reasons. He also says that there may be some secret sin involved and all of that. Now this so this goes back also, I want to point out that a famous atheist made an argument kind of along these lines years ago, and it it was Ald Aldous Huxley.

And I think and it was Aldous Huxley who said, and I don't have the precise quote, but he said something to the effect of, you know, I I didn't I d I walked away. I mean, I don't want Christianity to be a part of my life because I'd like to live as I please. Essentially, that's that's what he said. And I think a lot of people will gravitate toward that. I have always had a problem with that, Nathan. And I think so I I have no problem with Aldous Huxley saying that.

about himself. I think he can speak to that in his own life. That's fine. I have a problem with that as a blanket statement. And some of the critiques that have or some of the responses to Wim William Lane Craig, and there are other quite plenty of other people in the apologetic spaces who who make these kinds of arguments. The critiques have been, well, first of all, how do you know that? And secondly, that's

A failure to try to understand where they where they are actually coming from. They may have deeper reasons for walking away from Christianity. They may even have reasons that we would recognize at least as intellectually legitimate reasons. And that's a whole lot more difficult to deal with. That's more of a problem, and that's more of a threat to some Christians. It's much easier to simply dismiss them on moral grounds or to point to some sort of moral failure.

it's much harder to deal with the fact that they may actually have real legitimate reasons for walking away. So I think that's an important discussion. I think this is very important, particularly for people who want to speak into these conversations today, people who are interested in the world of apologetics. We are at a juncture now, and I'm gonna after I'll say this and I want to kick it over to you, Nathan. We are at a juncture now where who you are is going to be of the utmost importance. That is

Your character. You're going to have to lead with your character these days. People want the whole package. It's not going to be enough to have a couple of really airtight, what you believe to be airtight arguments in your bag. People will need to see you. They'll need to see your care for other human beings. You'll need to be able to listen to them carefully and not see that as a threat. And you'll have to seek to understand first before you speak.

So I'm gonna end there for a second.

Nathan (03:32)

Well,

I I think that are a couple of thoughts come to mind. One is is that I can think of numerous examples that all of the Christian apologists that are within the field or adjacent to the field of anything resembling analytical philosophy all have some pretty cringe moments in which maybe the way in which they're processing a rational argument does not translate well pastorally into any conversation. So we've named a name, but we can expand this, I think, to a broader set of

I was at a debate one time when Richard Swinburne was talking about the starving children in Africa in a less than compassionate way, let's say.

Cameron (04:10)

Uh-huh.

Nathan (04:12)

and so there's there we're setting that aside. Well, actually, no, we're not setting that aside. Well, I want to lean into that because I think we have a f focus so deeply in the apologetic endeavor on the intellectual side of the apologetic mandate that we've given a pass.

in all of the other categories of the apologetic mandate and I want us to look at some of those together. but before that, just to throw in the back of the mind for the listener, as you were speaking about that, I was thinking about the parable of the sower in the seed, Matthew thirteen in particular, where Jesus explains it and gives a list of reasons that the seed doesn't take or that it doesn't develop root and that it doesn't last. And just to go off and

And do whatever is not one of them. and so there we do have Jesus' version of some of the biblical categories for receiving the word and it taking root with joy, perhaps, but something like trouble, persecution, yeah, weariness, worries of the world. Jesus, so so I'm saying this is not a category that is unforeseen by our Lord, that there would be people who would receive the I remember when Daniel Dennett wrote his book.

Then it was like an interview of like four hundred pastors who had abdicated the faith and left and this was kind of this the this is in the new atheism era of gotcha. And I was like, this is not news. Like I probably know four hundred pastors that have left of I mean, I guess not four hundred, but like it's it's not a category that is unknown to Christian Christianity or Christian faith or is unforeseen as if this demands a unique intellectual response to somebody throwing in the towel.

after

I think anybody who's been around the church for any any amount of time has seen this happen. So just want to kind of throw that out there prophylactically to say Jesus talked about this. There's there no real surprises here that this is a category. so keep that in the back of your mind.

Cameron (06:19)

Why do you think it is that particularly within I've this is my observation, Nathan, particularly within apologetic circles, on the one hand, there's an interesting paradox, or perhaps it's an irony. On the one hand, you have a rigorous commitment, you can have a rigorous commitment to intellectually intellectual inquiry and thinking and philosophical debate and arguments.

But then on the other hand, there's a real reluctance to actually understand the views of one's opponent and to steel man those views and to really seek to to understand before we speak. What's what is it that stops so many from from going down that more difficult road? And maybe I just answer my question by saying difficult.

Nathan (07:16)

Yeah, well so so is this universally a problem for Christians or is it mainly in the apologetic sphere? who like who's producing the videos that feel they feel like they need to comment on these types of things? and it largely is the group that has done a lot of legitimate good work on the rationality, the logic, the reason, the building the case. I mean, William Lane Craig is an evidentialist.

classical apologist.

Cameron (07:46)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (07:47)

and so for him, he's gonna start back in the kalam argument and look at the implications and build out a case for the rationality of the Christian faith from there. Great, fun stuff. That's excellent. And humans don't really work that way. W when it when it comes down to and so I mean we're we're all massively inconsistent.

in the this, you know, from the doctor smoking a cigarette out behind the hospital to like it's not like reason and knowledge are are enough always to make us go in the right direction. So I would say there is a way in which sin can be a reason for walking away from the church that that is a category. and but I would put it deeper in more more of a a a sense of the brokenness of the human condition rather than the well I've

Weighed the odds here, and I think I'll sell my soul to the devil and enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, even though I know that it's actually wrong. Most people don't reject Christianity, they fade out of it. That's what that's what the research should. Like most people who aren't in the church anymore just got busy with other parts of life and developed a different moral vision of what was important to them and slowly transitioned into another community that had implications for the way in which they invested their time.

Most

people don't get mad and quit church and most people don't run into a logical imp impingement and then the whole thing

Cameron (09:14)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (09:14)

blows up and they deconstruct. That's but if you're working in a world in which logic, rationality, and reason are the main it's sort of like w we want the world to be a root we want other people's minds to be a Rubik's Cube, but they're much more like Play-Doh. Like there isn't a tidy way to properly structure and grapple with it. So

Anyway, that's a maybe that's another podcast, another tangent for another day. But let me let me throw out another passage here just to bring this back in because we are talking about apologetics. Cameron and I worked for a decade in the professional apologetics space, and I think what we are doing now is still apologetics, but it's a a a more biblically contextualized version of that, and this points to this conversation points to this. So

Most people who study apologetics or think about it could spout first Peter three fifteen off the top of their head. Most people don't have a deep sense of the chiastic structure in which the argument is made, grounded and rooted in Psalm 34. That's a whole nother talk for another time. But even if you're just going to cherry pick the verses out of here that say, But in your heart set apart Christ as Lord, and be prepared to give an answer. So to to give it to give a reason for everyone to

To everyone who asks you to give a reason, so there's the apologia, the logical, the rational defense, for the hope that you have. We stop right there, but it keeps going. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. And there is a whole lot packed into the second half of that nugget there.

That is outside the purview of the number of letters that you have in the degree slot behind your name, that it would do the church well to grow in that side of that also. And so I think we have for the last 30 years done a phenomenal job of leaning into the rational, the intellectual, the academic side of that. And that's been great. But the people who pursue that can't forget that actually it doesn't say anything about having a PhD.

In First Peter,

Cameron (11:29)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (11:30)

and that the vast majority of Christian apologetics are done out of a posture of gentleness and respect with a clear conscience and within a style of behavior that it somehow critiques the person giving you the critique when they malign you publicly. And so there's a yeah, there's a whole lot to unpack there, but say something here, Cameron, to help me think through how do we begin

Cameron (11:55)

Mm-hmm

Nathan (11:55)

to construct an apologetics that knows the arguments.

But

doesn't feel like we always have to use them. but understands that the human condition there there's there's a lot more in this apologetic mandate than we have taught in the last twenty years. I guess maybe that's

Cameron (12:12)

Let's

Nathan (12:13)

the starting point.

Cameron (12:13)

Yeah. Well, let's think about the difference. It here's what occurs to me. Think about the difference between a formal debate and a conversation. I'm saying formal debate because that applies very much to apologetic circles. We've mentioned some of the analytic minds. William Lane Craig has famously been involved in a lot of debates. Richard Swinburne has as well and other others of their of their ilk.

Nathan (12:32)

I saw William Lane Craig

debate an empty chair in Oxford once. That was fun. Because Dawkins didn't show. So anyway.

Cameron (12:37)

I remember that one. Well, I saw the footage of that. You were there, huh? Yep,

and we we we we were treated to a an impression of Richard Dawkins that yeah, the quality of that impression, I'll I'll leave that for the for the listeners to to decide. But formal debate. So I think there let me just be clear, I think there is a space for formal debates. I am I'm not actually too keen on them. I think that they have a lim I think their benefits are limited.

But I I think I do think they have some benefits in certain contexts.

Nathan (13:09)

Let's debate the

value of the debate. No I'm sorry. I'll be quiet now.

Cameron (13:13)

Yeah. Yeah, th

no, I think I think they're but a a debate is carefully, of course, structured, ideally speaking, and it has ideally speaking it also has a monitor moderator who will ensure that that those those rules are followed and that kind of thing. But No,

Nathan (13:29)

Yeah, but that's not that's not how the real world works.

Cameron (13:32)

no, no y hold on. That's what I'm saying. So that's the debate. I think a lot of apologists who are wired a certain way, a lot of people who are drawn to apologetics who are wired a certain way love that.

Because they like the structure, they like the rules,

Nathan (13:44)

Great. Praise the Lord.

Cameron (13:46)

they like the logic. Yeah, praise the Lord, we need them. A conversation is unruly. A conversation is open ended. A conversation is more difficult. And a conversation, if it's going to be a conversation, there are rules with the conversation too, by the way. And here's where I think a lot of pol apologists go astray. They might say, I love the conversation as well. But when you listen to them, it becomes a very clear that.

They don't really want to talk with someone. They want to talk at someone. And conversation doesn't work that way. The rule of the conversation is you have to you have to speak, but you also have to listen. And part of what you're getting at, Nathan, as you read that the more more verses into that passage, part of what we are both talking about is apologetics, biblical apologetics, must take into account the whole person. It's a more holistic enterprise.

And that is a more difficult path because and you did hint it you did talk about this with your example of the human mind being more like Plato. I'm gonna I'm gonna speak in more mystical terms here because I think it's important that we apologists are allergic to this often. But human beings are mysteries. That means you can't fully wrap your mind around another person. You can't fully wrap your mind around yourself. And this is not me spe I'm drawing from the church fathers here. This is Gregory of Nyssa.

Gregory of Nyssa has this passage where he says, Not only do you not understand God, you don't even know yourself fully. And Augustine of Hippo said, you know, when he was, when the question was put to him, or he, I mean, he rhetorically sets this up, what do you, you know, from God, what do you want? What do you want to know? Only two things, Lord. You, yourself and me. A very wise answer, the two inescapable presences of one's life. And so

If we take that into account, that means that statements like, well, obviously this guy just walked away from the church for moral reasons and really quick, easy pat descriptions of somebody else are almost certainly going to take you toward a caricature of that person. Now, they may have they may have walked away for moral reasons. Sure. I mean, and moral reasons will factor in. There may be some moral failure, that's true. But if you can if you can provide a description of what somebody did.

And and you th you could you give in your telling of it what is some sort of exhaustive explanation of what hap happened and you have it all down pat, it almost certainly is a caricature because you don't have anybody down pat like that. Not even yourself. And so yeah, I'll pause there for a bit. I think think about that difference between a formal debate and an unruly, dangerous conversation.

Nathan (16:32)

I want to clarify, I don't think that the human brain is like Play Doh. I was trying to come up with another kid's toy that wasn't that didn't have right angles involved in it, like a Rubik's Cube. So just just give me yeah,

Cameron (16:41)

no, I I th no, I th thought it was fine.

Nathan (16:42)

yeah. Right. There also, Cameron, is a I so I think there are times in which we can speak to other people's actions, maybe if we were their best friend for fifteen years.

Cameron (17:00)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (17:02)

It which which is very different than, here's

Cameron (17:05)

Yeah.

Nathan (17:05)

this guy I never talked to before in life, never read anything he wrote, never listened to any sermons, but here's the

Cameron (17:09)

No,

let me let me you you you're right. Let me clarify. I'm not saying that we can't that we can't call things out. I'm not saying that we can't call for accountability in people or in and their actions. Of course we can do that. I'm saying if we then move past that and give what we think is an exhaustive explanation of why they did their all their motivations, everything that they did, then we're going astray.

Nathan (17:34)

Okay, let me let me run two ideas by you, because I I I all right, I'm just gonna start talking to see if you can sort this out. I think there are two ways in which which we have a

Cameron (17:42)

Probably not. Just kidding.

Nathan (17:44)

which we have a tendency to go off the rails here. So one is an extreme overconfidence in a very narrow field of study that that makes us not want to listen. So we're like, pretty much I wrote the book on this topic. So there's nothing in this conversation that you can tell me that will

being

meaningful, so I will endure the noises that you're making and wait for you to pause so I can tell you the truth. That's one category. There's a, and so that's that's born out of an overconfidence. There's also an overbearing argumentative inability to listen that's born out of a lack of confidence, which is I'm listening to what you're saying, but I'm constructing the counterargument in my mind at the same time. So I think, and I've heard I've done this, you've done this, I've heard very

seasoned, well-meaning speakers, somebody stand up in a huge auditorium, start asking a question. I know where I think the answer where the question is going. The speaker starts working on their response to that question before the question is finished. The question goes in a different direction. The speaker answers where they thought the question was going, not what the question was. And it's a total miss because you're like, great answer, but that wasn't the question that was being asked. and so there's this inability to listen because it's like,

You're in a boxing match where you feel like you're fighting for your life. And I've got to win.

Cameron (19:05)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (19:06)

I to stay on top. I got to hold the lid down. I got to get the argument right. And what's wild, I think, when you listen to really seasoned, really confident Christians engage with a a a skeptic or a questioner how slow it is.

How thoughtful, how there

Cameron (19:26)

Yep. Nathan.

Nathan (19:28)

are listening noises, there are pauses. I d am am I am I speaking about

Cameron (19:32)

Very human.

Nathan (19:33)

an experience you've seen?

Cameron (19:35)

I spent the first five years of my apologetics career working very hard to answer questions that weren't that weren't being asked.

Nathan (19:46)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (19:47)

So I came by this, these convictions that I'm sharing honestly. And I all the everything you just described, I I've I was I was doing. And I think I wish I were, I wish it this had dawned on me sooner. But slowly and gradually the Lord was at work on my heart, and I realized look, do I want to.

Build some sort of repertoire for myself. Do I want to be, you you what like Luther's way of looking at this? Do I want to be a theologian of glory? Or do I want to be a theologian of the cross? And he's talking about everybody. He is not, he's remember, Luther had a tremendous heart for the common person. So he just by theolog he's using theologian in the very broad sense here. And if you're a theologian of the cross, that is the way of foolishness in the eyes of the world. Now that doesn't mean you're not prepared, doesn't mean you look like adult or an idiot.

It means you're willing to be seen as a fool, but it also means you're self sacrificial in your comportment to toward people. Now, this is an aspiration that very few of us fail, you know, we often fail to live up to it. Certainly Luther had his

moments of failing to live up to

Nathan (21:01)

Yeah.

Cameron (21:03)

those standards, but it's the right standard. It's a really beautiful high bar. And so my hope now is to talk to people. And not just I don't

So let me give you an let me let me tell you a little story of something that took place recently, Nathan. I was so I was talking with somebody, I I'd given a talk. This person came to me, and they are estranged from their son. And

Nathan (21:32)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (21:35)

the son had sent a book to to to this to this guy, and and he, you know, and the book was was

something that the man was really struggling with. He said and I said so he said, you know, I'm d I I'm gonna I need to be ready to refute everything in here. And I said, Well okay, first of all, I said, H have you read the book? No, but I wanna send these books to what what other books do you think I should send back to, you know, my son. And I said, Well, I think he sent you a book.

Nathan (22:01)

Mm-hmm. The preemptive

counter argument.

Cameron (22:06)

Preemptive counter argument. And so I said, Well, I w why don't why don't you first of all, I said, looking at this book, this actually looks this looks I think this book might be better than you think. I think it's also an an olive branch. I think you should read it. I think it would mean the world to your son if you did read it, and then you talked about it. And at the end of this, and so we went back and forth for a while, and at the end of this, this is one of those dream conversations where the person says to you what you

They they draw the conclusion you wanted them to draw, but he bas he said, I I was looking at this as something that I need to start refuting immediately. But what you're saying to me and what I'm realizing is that I need to seek to understand first. There's kinda Yes. Yes, absolutely. So that's yeah.

Nathan (22:53)

I I think that that's

that's beautifully said, but it's it's tied into a a thing that has always been, but I think is even more pertinent in a digital age, is that talk is cheap. when when my roommate nine college had a unspoken commitment that we would always defend the other one in a public debate. And we would start the most ridiculous I mean, this is you know

philosophy students after after supper, you're sitting around in the dining hall, and we would just take dumb ideas and try to win with a like it was just a you had to be there. and we didn't even believe the arguments ourselves, but we could s we could construct and build and manipulate and work through some of the most ridiculous propositions that we had no life commitment to or anything. And I think we won debates on on dumb

stuff frequently that we I but it like s so there's a way in which I'm trying to disconnect the the the desire for the o for the logic and the argument and the philosophy from it had no meaning on our lives. And

I think when

Cameron (24:05)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (24:06)

we're talking about our faith, this idea in in First Peter three that he's really talking about how do you live a life of holiness in the context of suffering and do so in such a way that people see that you have a hope in something that transcends the circumstance in which you're living.

that there is a an ontological weight and heft to the life of the believer that

It's like there there was a little boy who came up to me one time and I was talking

Cameron (24:34)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (24:35)

to some other guys and I guess he wanted our attention and we weren't giving it to him, so he kicked me in the shin. And he was a tiny kid, so it didn't really I I ignored him. And then he fell down on the ground and started crying. And I'm like, Okay, he's crying because he kicked me. And then he jumped up and he's like, I'm gonna go tell my dad what you did. I was like, That's right. You go tell your dad that you kicked me so hard in the shin that it made your foot hurt. And he was like,

wait, that that's not you know, but there there was something about like the the the there wasn't an actual threat there to my well being. And do you do you live in that reality in your intellectual engagement of your faith that there is such heft, there there's such stability there that the other person you don't sense them as a threat and they don't sense you as a threat.

in that and so it it's not like a it's not like a seesaw where there's like this teeter totter and and depending on which way we lean the thing's gonna go. yeah, any the

Cameron (25:38)

That's a really good word,

Nathan. And I think a convicting one. So the question here is, I mean, I in my experience, for those, the small group who are very eager to to jump into this kind of world, the question would be, do you have that stability? And I want to be clear on what I mean by that. You're talking in terms of a person's overall character. You're not talking about their intellectual achievements. Because I've been to conferences and apologetic spheres and I've

I've heard apologists say things like, and you need to read this and this and this, because your children sure will sure will be dealing with this and all. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, do you have the question that you need to put to yourself before you really enter into that world is do you have that kind of stability? Not just intellectual, that spiritual stability. The early church, and in scripture, by the way, apologetics had

Everything to do with why Christians stood out and were strange in the Roman Empire. That's really what most of the they they weren't questions about the nature of evil or the exclusivity of Christ in the same sense that we think.

Nathan (26:45)

Go read Justin Martyr's apology.

Cameron (26:47)

Right. You re read Justin Martyrs. I mean, these are questions that are occasioned by what we would call holiness. And

Nathan (26:53)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (26:53)

so you're you're you stand out as an anomaly. So I mean, an ac a typical apologetic question would actually be why don't you swear by oaths?

This is just a normal business practice. Why don't you or why don't you have household gods? You know, why aren't you worshiping in the temple? Those are those are apologetics questions. But they had to do with who you were and why you followed Jesus. The some of the questions these days are a little bit more comfortable intellectual remove, but we're moving back into it, feels a little bit more like that earlier period because people are interested in you.

your character. And so if you if you come across certain thinkers who are very compelling and remain convinced that Christianity isn't true, can you talk to them? Or are you or do you are you going to feel back with your back against the wall, like you have to caricature them, like you have to malign their character and their reasons? Or are you able are you able to comfortably

endure their views and not feel it as a threat at all on your bones. I mean, that's gonna

Nathan (28:05)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (28:05)

that's gonna be a big one.

Nathan (28:07)

But that doesn't mean that you won't suffer in doing this. and I was thinking a little, you know, forgotten fact of how the Salem witch trials ended. Do you know this one? What what put the whole thing to a to a stop? Is there was a there

Cameron (28:20)

I don't know. I don't think I do. No.

Nathan (28:23)

yeah, I man, I shouldn't tell a story without the details, but there was a there was a guy who had just a phenomenal reputation as a community and spiritual leader. So reputation

above repute. and there was a belief that if you were that if you were possessed or you actually were a witch or involved in that you couldn't say the Lord's prayer perfectly. And so anyway, he was accused, he was put on trial, the whole thing, and they took him out to hang him and he stood before the entire thing. Everybody knew he was a good guy. He said the Lord's prayer perfectly

And they killed him. And the whole crowd was like, We just messed up.

and

Cameron (29:13)

Mm.

Nathan (29:14)

and that is a

And and a a an apologetic of suffering here where the the where the the content and the character of his life had such gravitas he still died for it, but it it ended more deaths than any form like you're dealing with a group of people who were thinking totally irrationally. There there was no intellectual counter argument to the silliness that was going on there. and so s that's and it's a weird story, but it's and I think it was Salem is

Cameron (29:45)

Mm-hmm. No, it's a sobering

note, and it's a good sobering note.

Nathan (29:51)

Cha

check me on the details of which there there I think it was in Salem, but there was there was a series of killings in which the the last guy they're kind of like, I don't I don't And so it it causes what it does is it causes the it causes second guessing in the life of the opposition. Or i it causes a a disturbance where cause just in the same

Cameron (30:13)

Mm-hmm. Yep.

Nathan (30:15)

way that we're saying, hey, we don't want to overly charac you know create caricatures and cartoons of

the other people do that frequently with Christians also. And so are you living a

Cameron (30:26)

Of course.

Nathan (30:26)

life that that evades the simplistic political, moralistic is there a real there there or is it just a label?

Cameron (30:34)

There's a story that

there's a story that's not dissimilar to that, Nathan, of a certain monk perishing in a gladiatorial arena at the h at the claws of a wild animal, and that this became a significant moment for people's the turning of their hearts regarding the gladiatorial games. Something about

Nathan (30:58)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (30:59)

this this little man's death.

helped people to see it otherwise and to recognize the barbarity of what was actually going on. But I'm also grateful you brought this up. It is a s it's a it is a very stark and s sobering example. But I'm glad you brought it up here, Nathan, because again, in the world of apologetics, we started naming some of the the bigger names. Go to go back to what I said earlier, some people do see this as a place where you can go and win. And that, friends, that is

the absolute wrong motivation behind behind that. Behind apologetics. Apologetics is just a little tool that the that the church at the church's disposal. It's not everything, but the motivation and the goal with it, as with everything else, is to is to love the Lord supremely and then to love one's neighbor. And if it's if it's to look smart, if it's to if it's to get even for

Christians, let's let's be honest. I mean, Christians are caricatured a lot, like you said, Nathan. Christians now we don't experience the kind of the kind of persecution that we see around the world, you know, which is very severe indeed. But let's not pretend like humiliation isn't a har is isn't a painful thing. It is. And Christians

Nathan (32:19)

Isn't an option here.

Cameron (32:20)

yeah, and Christians on a routine basis in public and in many other places are humiliated in North America. They are made a spectacle of. They're made a spectacle of in in the media, in w

think about any movie you watch, any show you watch, if there's a Christian and it there's good chance it's going to the Christian is going to be portrayed as a fool or some sort of stereotype.

Nathan (32:41)

yeah. So let's

think of you know, the Big Bang Theory, Sheldon's mom. You know, the the there's your classic Hollywood portrayal of yeah.

Cameron (32:45)

Yes. Sheldon's mom's a perfect example. Mm-hmm. Ned Flanders, the neighbor in the Simpsons.

I mean, on and on we could go. But and so I think there that will some people will be pushed, they're they're angry and they feel that in their bones. And some people will look at apologetics as a way to settle the score. It's

Nathan (33:07)

Mm-hmm.

Cameron (33:08)

not. It's not a way to and it it it is not a way to settle the score. Christian biblical apologetics.

is there for the sake of your neighbor. And also for the sake of Christians who who perhaps are struggling and and want to deepen their faith and their confidence. So yeah.

Nathan (33:25)

Couple things. Yeah.

Well said. One is just in the beginning where we said, you know, people walking away from the faith is not unforeseen, is, you know, it's not unforeseen by Christ. Also, the whole apologetic endeavor is in the context of the end of chapter two, where it's talking about Christ suffered, leaving you an example, and this is how you handle suffering. So humiliation is is not nobody ever thought of this within Christianity. Pretty sure Christ himself gives us the role model there. So so I

We gotta keep coming back to reminding ourselves that we do have the resources for dealing with these things, even if we haven't yet needed them. There's still the tools in the toolbox for that. But the maybe maybe a a story that I wanna throw in here is that when my dad was my actually I'd never heard this story until this week. He was reflecting on a time where he was in seminary and got a job on the grounds crew and then mowed over a lady's flower bed on accident while learning to operate the the new lawnmower.

at the at the retirement village. And he said, you know, not great. But what was interesting is the patch that he mowed off was a mint patch. And he's like, so I destroyed that section of the flower bed. But he's like, it was the most sweet, fragrant, and pleasing aroma that arose from the destruction that I had caused. And he said, this is not a this is not to say that Christians should just go out there and try to be door mats for the world to wipe their feet on. But there should be a sense in which that even in our engagement with

opposition that when we are broken in that, that there's a an eye a head turning aroma and style to the way in which we even do disagreement. And so I've been in the last few years really trying to push past the sense of, I used to kind of have a funny little prayer in my mind of like, Lord, help me help people not to think more or less of me than they should. I want to give an accurate representation of of who I really am right now.

and and speak out of that, not out of, you know, trying to make myself seem like more or so I I I kind of had that. And I think to a certain degree that's okay. But then it's shifted over the years of saying, Lord, help people not think more of me than what I am, in a sense that I want them to see the goodness of God. But help me be okay when they think less of me than what I am. And and so it's not don't let them think less of me than than I am. It's

Help me be okay with that. And if I need to be the Modoff mint in this interaction, so be it. that puts you in a different and this is why, Cameron, you know, people always say, it must be so hard for you going on college campuses and you're no you're talking to people and though and everything's hostile. And like we've been to some of the exact same places that make the news for the riots that break out without causing a riot.

Primarily because most of the time if you treat somebody, you listen to what they're actually saying, you hear the heart of the concern that they have, you respond with thoughtfulness and nuance and understand the complexity of the like it just doesn't create the the built up tension for the explosion that creates the fireworks that everybody loves. and so there's just anyway.

Cameron (36:40)

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, be prepared to suffer. But if you conduct yourself with respect and love and a gentleness and respect, most of the time people will be delighted to talk to you. One of the pl

Nathan (36:53)

And if

you get crucified, that's not out of the it doesn't mean you lost.

Cameron (37:01)

No. Again, if you're committed to the way of the clo the cross, you're committed to the way of the cross.

All right, more could be said. I'm sure more more will be said. Yes. If you got your

Nathan (37:14)

More will be said. More episodes.

Cameron (37:17)

yeah, you got your TOL bingo card in front of you. I think we say that I say that on a fairly routine basis. But there it is. Here's another thing I say all the time. Do you like this? Have if you took the time to make a bingo card for us, then you like us that much. Tell more people. Give hand out those bingo cards and tell more people to play the game.

Get to listen to us. So like, share, and subscribe and spread the word be our megaphone. And if you want to support us financially, you can do that by going to www dot toltogether dot com.