Myth of neutrality

[tgoerz]

Here's an interesting piece off a recent email from "Desiring God Blog":

(Author: David Mathis)

Is feigning neutrality a good strategy in telling a nonbeliever about Jesus? In his Apologetics to the Glory of God, John Frame argues that doing so is not only unwise but dishonest.

"To tell an unbeliever that we can reason with him on a neutral basis, however that claim might help to attract his attention, is a lie. Indeed, it is a lie of the most serious kind, for it falsifies the very heart of the gospel—that Jesus Christ is Lord. For one thing, there is no neutrality. Our witness is either God's wisdom or the world's foolishness. There is nothing in between. For another thing, even if neutrality were possible, that route would be forbidden to us."

For one of the best popular efforts to do what Frame describes, see Tim Keller's "The Reason for God".


Am I misunderstanding that Mathis is saying that Keller in his book is guilty of "neutrality"?

 

[Skyler]

Perhaps he's referring to evidentialism. Just looking at the title of the book gives me that impression...

 

[Tripel]

For one of the best popular efforts to do what Frame describes, see Tim Keller's "The Reason for God".

Am I misunderstanding that Mathis is saying that Keller in his book is guilty of "neutrality"?

I'm not sure what Mathis is saying, but I don't think Keller is taking a "neutral" approach to apologetics. Speaking to the skeptic on his terms is not the same as neutrality. What Keller is doing in The Reason for God is showing that there are logical and scientific clues to existence of God.

 

[rpavich]

What Keller is doing in The Reason for God is showing that there are logical and scientific clues to existence of God.

In my mind; the point would be that whomever is shown these "evidences" will see them differently than the believer.

Could that be what he's getting at?

 

[MMasztal]

What Keller is doing in The Reason for God is showing that there are logical and scientific clues to existence of God.

In my mind; the point would be that whomever is shown these "evidences" will see them differently than the believer.

Could that be what he's getting at?

I think you nailed it. Neutrality is, in the real sense, a myth. Everything that we think and do is based on presuppositions we gain over time. If one were truly neutral, he would have no rational basis for making any decisions about anything since we could make no assumptions about anything.

The unbeliever, in trying to get the Christian to be neutral, is merely attempting to get the Christian to play on his field and accept his presuppositions. Once the Christian falls into that trap, it is more difficult to win an arguement.