Re: Apologists and other salesmen

Bill Frix (
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:11:39 GMT-5

There has been a series of messages about the subject matter, so
I'll throw in my 2 cents (possibly worth less than that) after
re-tracing the comments.

> My main gripe about those in the Christian apologetical business
> is that they do not put out the hard work to keep up with the
> fields they purport to study and thus they teach Christians things
> that are out of date and wrong. We should do better than that.
> Remember James 3:1.

Yes, and there are scientists who purport to understand ancient
languages and cultures, either. Maybe we should all shut up.

> a) anyone can publish materials for church people without passing
> any peer review process;

So can many scientists (the "good old boy" system is still alive and

> b) the apologetic message of the Church is being co-opted and
> manipulated by shrewd politicians and other salesmen;

Who are you referring to? Mainline churches? Fundamentalists?

> c) innocent lay people in the churches are taught all kinds of
> nonsense -- anything will be accepted as long as it is made to
> appear consistent with the Bible.

Amen, like "once saved, always saved" (I am an Arminianist).

> d) the Bible itself is being crowded out by the pretentious
> commentaries of authors who load such verbose footnotes into the
> pages that they look -- and function -- more like the Talmud.

Are you referring to people like Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, John
Calvin, or just to people you don't agree with?

> Do we need an "Evangelical Council of Scientific Accountability" to
> police ourselves on scientific matters?

Sounds more like a modern day "Spanish Inquisition" to me. We don't
need an "Evangelical Council of Scientific Accountability" because we
already have some: IEEE, ASME, etc. Truth is truth - the accepted
scientific theories have already been subject to scrutiny. However,
not all evangelicals believe alike on scientific issues (or other
matters). If you push me, I am a young earth creationist - I don't
think the ASA agrees with me (judging by the email I read). Though I
am a trained scientist, I don't think I would be allowed to sit on
such a "Council", hence it would mean nothing to me.

> Add Medicine to the list. Evangelicals have been among the worst to
> succomb to homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic and other alternative
> systems that have little or no scientific basis, and accuse me specifically
> and the medical profession generally of being opposed to them on strictly
> financial terms. This was the case way back with Luyties Pharmaceuticals -
> anyone out there remember ferrum phos and natrum mur? - and is the case now
> with Amway, Shackley, and other purveyors of nostrums to the evangelical
> community.

I am not God - but neither are the medical doctors and scientists.
I find it interesting that there are cures used today that would
have been rejected years ago. After all, who would believe that the
mold on an orange could cure diseases, or that "leaches and blood
letting" are of no medicinal value? So too, what is rejected today
may become standard procedures tomorrow, and that what is standard
practice today may be seen as barbaric in the future.

You don't have all the answers and you may just be wrong.

William M. Frix
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
Box 3021
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Phone: (501) 524-7466
FAX: (501) 524-9548