Cold Case Christianity: the bible is racist and imperfect

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: No GQ, the Bible is not Racist, Sexist or Boring

Posted: 18 Jun 2018 01:34 AM PDT

Recently, the editors of GQ (Gentlemen’s Quarterly online) released its list of 21 Books You Don’t Have to Read. They boldly claimed, “…not all the Great Books have aged well. Some are racist and some are sexist, but most are just really, really boring. So we—and a group of un-boring writers—give you permission to strike these books from the canon.” The Bible was smack dab in the middle of their list.

You may recognize a few other classic works on GQ’s roster of “racist,” “sexist,” and “boring” books: Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea and A Farewell to Arms, Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. These books were listed for a variety of reasons, but the editor’s explanation for the inclusion of the Bible was particularly harsh: “It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.”

While many may find those words to be rather severe, they actually sounded familiar to me when I first read the GQ article. As an atheist, I can remember saying something similar to a Christian co-worker. But that all changed as I began to investigate the Bible using the skills I had developed as a detective. I’ve now come to appreciate the Bible above all other texts (religious or otherwise), largely because the editors of GQ are wrong:

The Bible’s not racist: The Bible doesn’t divide people based on their racial identity.

 Jesus held off granting a healing request to a Gentile women until she cleverly responded to his racist remark by admitting it was correct to characterize the Jews as children and herself as a dog:

 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."
 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."
 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. (Matt. 15:22-28 NAU)

 Inerrantist scholar has to trifle that the wording here suggests the Gentiles are not wild dogs, but pet dogs, as if this reduces the stigma!

15:25–28 The woman merely repeats her plea for help but also kneels. Whatever her intention, Matthew will see some kind of worship here. Jesus pursues the question of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v. 26). Jews frequently insulted Gentiles by calling them “dogs,”— the wild, homeless scavengers that roamed freely in Palestine. But the diminutive form here (kynarion rather than kyōn) suggests a more affectionate term for domestic pets, particularly since these dogs eat under the children’s table. Even at best, Jesus’ remarks still strike the modern reader as condescending. Jesus apparently wants to demonstrate and stretch this woman’s faith. The “children” must then refer to Israel and the “bread” to the blessings of God on the Jews, particularly through Jesus’ healing ministry. The woman disputes none of Jesus’ terms but argues that, even granting his viewpoint, he should still help her (v. 27). The Gentiles should receive at least residual blessings from God’s favor on the Jews. In fact, the Old Testament from Gen 12:1–3 onwards promised far more than residue. The woman reveals a tenacious faith even as a Gentile (v. 28). Jesus explicitly commends this faith, closely paralleling the narrative of 8:5–13 (as does also his instantaneous healing from a distance). Matthew’s distinctives underline her faith by the addition both of her words in v. 22 and of Jesus’ praise here. “Your request is granted” more literally reads let it be done for you as you wish.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 244).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Evangelical scholar Hagner admits what "dog" really meant:

This word, used first by Jesus and then by the woman, recalls that Gentiles were sometimes likened to the unclean dogs that roamed the streets (cf. 7:6). κυρίων, “masters,” suggests the superiority of Israel as the people of God over the Gentiles.

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B:

Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 442). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Wallace continues:

Skin color, along with other external human features, are unimportant to God.

But it was apparently important enough to the Jews that black people had to remind Jews to stop focusing on skin color:

 6 Do not stare at me because I am dark, because I am darkened by the sun. My mother's sons were angry with me and made me take care of the vineyards; my own vineyard I had to neglect. (Cant. 1:6 NIV)

 Wallace continues:

According to the Bible, God created humans – all humans – in His image (Genesis 1:27), and unlike the rest of us, God doesn’t judge people based on their outward appearance, but instead “looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

If God doesn't judge by outward appearance, he probably didn't give the command requiring all Gentile men among the Hebrews to get circumcised:

48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. (Exod. 12:48 NAU)

 Numbers 31:18 says that among the Midianite women captured in war, only the females whose hymens are still intact can be spared the death-penalty:

 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Num. 31:17-18 NAU)

 One has to wonder how Moses and his army men figured out which of the women were virgins and which weren't.  But we can be fairly sure that it involved something a bit more physically intrusive than prayer.

The Apostle Paul wrote that “there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” (Galatians 3:28), and the Apostle Peter said that, “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

And yet, long after the Great Commission wherein the risen Christ told the original apostles that they were to evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20), we still find them intentionally limiting their efforts solely to the Jews, and allocating the entire Gentile mission field to Paul alone, Galatians 2:9,

When Martin Luther King Jr. – a Bible believing, Baptist minister – argued for the dignity and equality of African Americans, he did so based on the teaching of Scripture. This alone is adequate reason to read the Bible.

Equality in the bible doesn't mean it contains no inequality or racist statements. Only those who believe in bible "inerrancy" would engage in such a broad brushing assumption.

The Bible’s not sexist: Given the cultural setting in which the Bible was written, it’s unfair to claim it is sexist.

 Is that why the bible says girl babies make the mother unclean longer than boy babies?

 2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.
 3 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
 4 'Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.
 5 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days. (Lev. 12:2-5 NAU)

 Reminder to the apologists:  the text says the mother remains UNCLEAN longer upon birth of a baby girl. It is neither expressed nor implied that the extra time was to allow more bonding between mother and infant.  UNCLEAN is a yucky state of affairs, never something positive.

Wallace continues:

In fact, Jesus’ continuous interaction with women was countercultural. He had female disciples, many of his closest friends were women (i.e. Martha and her sister, Mary), and some of his most profound theological teaching was first shared with women (as in John 11:20-27).

He also talked down to his own mother:

  3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
 5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." (Jn. 2:3-5 NAU)

And Jesus dishonorably refused to agree with somebody who considered his mother honorable:

  27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
 28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Lk. 11:27-28 NAU)

 Wallace continues:

It was a woman who first acknowledged the identity of Jesus as the Messiah (the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John),

 That's in the gospel of John, the latest of the gospels, and you don't have the first fucking clue whether this story is real or just made up by John, in light of conservative NT scholars Craig Evans and Mike Licona and their belief that John puts in Jesus' mouth words he never said.

and it was a woman (Mary) who first discovered the empty tomb.

But the low status of women might be inferred from the fact that the women are never credited by Paul or other apostles in their actual preaching of the resurrection.   Its not about who was first to see the empty tomb, but who Jesus actually appeared to.  And despite Jesus appearing to the women in all 4 gospels, the women are never cited as resurrection witnesses in Paul's infamous list of resurrection witnesses, 1st Corinthians 15:

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Women played a critical role in the ministry of Jesus, because as Paul said, “there is no male and female” for we are all one in Christ.

 Nope, apostle Paul cited to Eve not being the first to be created, and Eve having been successfully hoodwinked by the devil, as his basis for refusing to allow women to teach in the church:

 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Tim. 2:9-15 NAU)

 Commentators who pretend Paul only said this because of some local heresy, is total bullshit.  Paul's reasons for prohibiting women from teaching are reasons that would easily be taken as biblical evidence that women are intellectually inferior to men.

Wallace continues:

This teaching about the value, status and identity of women, written two millennia prior to modern feminist movements, once again makes the Bible worth reading.

The Bible’s not boring: The Bible isn’t simply a collection of moralistic stories and proverbial proclamations, and it isn’t uninteresting. It is a description of the world the way it really is.

Yeah right.  A book that mentions talking snakes, a parted Red Sea with a "wall of water" on either side of the escaping Israelites, a talking donkey, angels flying, people walking on water, rising from the dead, flying up to heaven, enjoying telepathy...this book describes the way the world really is?  FUCK YOU.

It presents a comprehensive view of reality, answering the most foundational questions asked by humans for thousands of years.

Correct.  Humans have been asking for thousands of years why evil like rape occurs, and Isaiah 13:13-17 answers:  this is God causing men to rape women:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.  (Isa. 13:13-18)

Wallace continues:

It describes how we got here, why our world is broken, and how it can be fixed. The overarching narrative of the Bible has served to inspire artists of all kinds. Writers such as Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and Dickens, artists like Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Del Greco, and musicians such as Vivaldi, Handel, and Bach found creative inspiration on the pages of Scripture.

It's also been a source of dangerous confusion for many people because it is more ideological than realistic.  You are never allowed to sin, and yet, reality makes it impossible to avoid sinning. So the bible-god intentionally commands the impossible, and yet wants his readers to believe that he shakes the mountains in fiery wrath when sinners sin.  One wonders whether God also sends judgments upon dogs for barking.

If you’re wondering what stirred these great creative geniuses, you might want to read the Bible for yourself.

And if the bible has confused your mind and made you think 'god' is a psycho more interested in himself than his victims, throwing the bible away might be the lesser of two evils.

As I began to investigate the claims of the Bible using my skillset as a cold-case detective, I found that the Gospels varied in content and style, just as I would expect if they were reliable eyewitness accounts of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

They also contradict each other,  but perhaps as a detective you never worry about witnesses who contradict each other?  You cannot find any non-Christian historian who thinks the variation in the gospel testimony justifies moving beyond the details and concluding that Jesus rose from the dead even if some of the witnesses are in disagreement about other matters.

They weren’t overly “repetitive” nor “self-contradictory,” especially given my experience interviewing thousands of eyewitnesses.

But you've never interviewed eyewitnesses who lived in Palestine in 40 a.d.  Some would argue that your experience is useless for discerning the truth-content of ancient testimony given by people of vastly different cultures.  What are you gonna do next?  Call Matthew to the witness stand?

Cold Case Christianity: Wallace misleads the youth to become eager to violate New Testament principles

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity:
How Role-Playing Can Energize Your Group to Become Case Makers

 Posted: 15 Jun 2018 06:01 AM PDT

 Not long ago, Brett Kunkle, Sean McDowell and I spent several days training students for a Berkeley Missions trip. These trips are fun but challenging. Brett still leads these trips regularly, helping Christian high school students engage young men and women on the UC Berkeley campus. Once there, the students discuss issues related to theism, culture and worldview. These young Christians also interact with thoughtful atheist authors, speakers and student leaders during the trip. The resulting discussions are robust, pointed, and sometimes hostile. In spite of the challenging nature of the excursion, students usually begin this training with a naïve sense of confidence and (I hate to say it) apathy.

Only a Christian apologist would try to put a damper on a child's joy in the Lord.

And if the kids are apathetic toward the goal of the trip, that might tell you they don't have enough of the Holy Spirit to justify trying to "empower" them for the mission field, especially the type of mission field that is most likely to put them in contact with information likely to persuade them to do what many other Christians have done, and give up the faith.

Like many other Christians I meet across the country, our students need to understand the importance of case making before they will ever take a step toward becoming case makers.

That's funny, I thought that the basis for the motive to become a productive Christian was the Holy Spirit.  It's nice to know you are a cessationist, and therefore, you have about as much of a 'relationship' with Jesus as you have with Abraham Lincoln.

As we begin to train each group, we must overcome their apathy and naïve confidence.

Some Christians would argue that the more effort you put into trying to motivate Christians to become more interested in goals you think are spiritual, the less convicting power of the Holy Spirit you actually believe in.  In today's apologetics, the Holy Spirit is nothing but a gratuitous afterthought.  Fuck what the bible says, your spiritual growth will be stunted if you don't learn how to answer atheism.  How can you seriously believe God has any part to play here, if your actions make it seem as if God just sits up there looking down and expecting everybody else to do all the work?  Like I said, "gratuitous afterthought".

If you’ve tried to energize your own church, family or community about “apologetics” (Christian Case Making), you’ve probably experienced something similar.

Wow, the general apathy of today's Christians toward apologetics is so pervasive, even an apologist can complain about it.

In fact, many of you have written to me, expressing this frustration: “How can I encourage my church to understand the need for Christian Case Making?” If you’ve ever found yourself asking a question like this, I have a potential solution: consider role-playing.

That solution is nowhere expressed or implied in the bible.  But prayer is:

 24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you. (Mk. 11:24 NAU)

 If Christians pray, yet don't convince their church to start giving a fuck about "case-making", you might consider that God, in his sovereignty, has decided that this is one of the things he doesn't want the Christians in this church or that church to engage in.  But no, you keep on truckin' as if what you have to say applies across the board to everybody all the time.

You also might try a little common sense: If the church is not interested in apologetics, you have no reason to think they are spiritually mature enough to handle getting that close to the devil, in which case it makes more sense to either walk away, or build them up in the faith before trying to turn them into spiritual lights.

In 1st Corinthians 12 Paul insisted that not everybody has the same spiritual gifts:

 27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.
 (1 Cor. 12:27-31 NAU)

 Paul admitted elsewhere that while he has the ideological goal of others being like him in their actions and life-choices, he also knows that this is unrealistic because not everybody has the same gifts.  Notice what he says about the goodness of men remaining single, but the stupidity of expecting this of every man:

 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. (1 Cor. 7:5-7 NAU)

Yet Wallace is so stuck on his "case-making" bells and whistles, he leaves no room for the obvious biblical truth that not everybody has the gift of teaching, and certainly not "youths" (!?)...and of course "teaching" is precisely what Wallace is having these kids doing when they try to 'answer' atheists and bible skeptics. 

Wallace is so focused on his goal of selling Jesus in Wallace-style that he has completely forgotten that there are probably millions of Christians he is speaking who are not and never will be fit to hold the office of a teacher.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that he is asking youngsters to be "teachers", when in fact not only is there no biblical precedent for this, but the biblical precedent warns even adults that most of them should not consider becoming teachers:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (Jas. 3:1 NAU)

Other biblical criteria for teachers necessarily imply the teacher is not a youth but well-seasoned by experience to handle the crap that normally comes with being a teacher:

 23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.    (2 Tim. 2:23-26 NAU)

First, given Wallace's insanely obstinate stance that Christianity is true and atheism false, we might very well force Wallace to take the position that he believes atheism and all of its challenges to theism constitute "foolish and ignorant speculations" which Paul said to avoid (v. 23).  And indeed, other parts of the bible force Wallace to view atheism as not merely wrong, but foolish (Psalm 14:1) and thus, the New Testament, in telling Wallace to stay away from foolish and ignorant speculations, is telling him to stay away from atheism.

Second, the teacher cannot be "quarrelsome" (v. 24), yet I would imagine that any school-aged child who really liked apologetics, would likely harbor such desire because it gives them a way to vent their sinful lust to argue, a lust they wish to indulge merely because they get off on being contentious with others.

Many kids and teens are attention-whores, and Wallace runs the risk that many of the youth in his audiences will look upon their bible and faith as an excuse to draw attention to themselves, as indeed happens to most apologists, including Wallace himself, when in fact the alleged goal is to transfer focus off of oneself and onto Jesus.  Wallace's trying to turn kids into spiritual lights is like trying to promote a teenager to the position of overseer.  He is about as pathetic as the 18 year old Mormon missionaries who call themselves "Elder" so-and-so.  Elder?  Really?


Paul also presumes folly in the young when he says young widows are not to be placed on the church's charity list until they are old, because, Paul presumes, they will more than likely give in to their animal instincts and end up wanting to get married again, or gossiping again:

 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,
 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.
 13 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention.
 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;
 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Tim. 5:11-15 NAU)

It is clear that Wallace doesn't give two shits about this biblical precedent; if you wanted your 3 year old to learn apologetics, Wallace would probably write a book on it and then tour the U.S. giving lectures on how important it is to buy his books and turn toddlers into spiritual warriors.  Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, most of the crap Wallace teaches also doesn't make sense (as can be presumed from his carefully efforts to avoid debating me and avoid responding to my challenges and indeed to any challenges from other informed bible critics), but that doesn't slow him down in the least from being utterly obsessed with selling, selling, selling.  He is nothing but a 1950's Jehovah Witness with a bullhorn on his car.  If you wish to make money selling Jesus, advertise, advertise, advertise.

As Christ followers, we typically surround ourselves with other like-minded believers.

Which is the reason you and Christian "heretics" are so difficult to dissuade, you purposefully create a happy social bubble that makes it nearly impossible for truths you don't agree with, to significantly impact your life (to be fair, Wallace is into apologetics so he is less inclined to say inside his happy Christian bubble than most Christians).  I suppose that if I surrounded myself only with other atheist bible critics, I would create a happy bubble around myself, but I can afford to be more objective than Christians can.

In the comfortable worlds we inhabit and create for ourselves, we seldom encounter people who challenge us or make us uncomfortable.

That can only be a good thing in the bible, since it is precisely the outsider's challenging and making you uncomfortable that leads straight to your apostasy or heresy.   Wallace doesn't consider that some Christians are likely so fragile in the faith that they aren't ready to join god's "army".

Many of us don’t even understand the extent to which our Christian beliefs are being challenged by the increasingly antagonistic culture. We’ve insolated (sic) ourselves to the point of apathy.

That might give you a clue, Wallace: the only reason you have an apathetic Christian demographic to market your materials to in the first place, is because those people either lack salvation, or are otherwise not intended by God to be spiritual soldiers. 

Because we’re never challenged, we fail to see the need to study.

Blame it on the Holy Spirit, since he is allegedly capable of making even unbelievers do what he wants (Ezra 1:1), so he has no excuse for not exerting the same magically coercive telepathy on his own followers.

Most of us don’t start thinking about dinner until we get hungry.

Telling you that most of your readers have more in common with elementary school kids than they have with city planners.  School kids?  Not the kind of people that should be teaching atheists...the devil's most clever disciples.

We don’t start shopping for a car until our current car isn’t working.

Ditto.

Similarly, most Christians don’t recognize the need for Case Making until they’ve been challenged to make a case.

But you haven't shown biblical justification for saying ALL Christians need to be case-makers.  Apologetics puts you in contact with some very smart people who have a track record of successfully deconverting Christians.  You are rather stupid if you think you aren't putting kids in spiritual danger by blindly assuming its always good for them to do the work that not even most adult teachers are prepared to do.

That’s why role-playing is so effective. Last night, as in most of our prior training sessions, we began with some acting. We spent an hour challenging the students as though we were non-believers. We did our best to portray the opposition with clarity and fairness, but we pressed our students as much as possible. We presented the arguments we typically encounter when talking with atheists (or held ourselves when we were non-believers).

They'd be better prepared for real-world encounters if you have them try to handle a real atheist or bible critic.  If you are going to ignore biblical restrictions, then go for gold.

At first, it didn’t take much effort to stump the group or frustrate them with our atheistic objections. Within minutes, the students realized they were unable to defend what they believed as Christians. After an hour, their frustration was palpable. They were irritated with their inability to defend what they believed, and while this incompetence made them uncomfortable, it served our purposes perfectly. Suddenly, Christian Case Making became important to these students; they understood their inability and the magnitude of the challenge.

Probably because they were youthful, and youths have more tendency to want to win an argument for reasons other than long-term spiritual good.  Impressing one's cohorts with flashes of intellectual brilliance are also among the reasons many Christian  youths would wish to become involves in apologetics.   

Once again, the bible says atheism is foolish (Psalm 14:1), and the Christian teacher is to avoid foolish subjects (2nd Timothy 2:23 ff, supra).  I find it disturbing, to say the least, that Wallace can forge ahead with his new marketing scheme, while being so blissfully ignorant of (or apathetic toward) the New Testament restrictions on just who is supposed to be a teacher.

When I am asked to do longer, multi-session training with a group, I sometimes begin without revealing my Christian identity at all. I’ll introduce myself as the old atheist I used to be. Without revealing who I am today, I’ll spend an hour demonstrating the defensive shortcomings of the group.

Hard to believe that the Holy Spirit, whom you credit as the reason you have joy in the Lord, would approve of you misleading others about what you really believe.  YOU might play games, but the Holy Spirit likely doesn't.

When I finally reveal I’m a Christian, the group is typically relieved to find out I am on their side. If my time with a group is much shorter, I’ll still find a way to “role-play” the position of those who oppose the Christian view. If nothing else, I’ll simply provide a series of quotes (or even a short video) demonstrating the strength of the opposition.

If you want to turn them into spiritual giants, have them meet with me or some other bible critic who specializes in answering apologists.   I'll start them off on why it makes no sense to say that causing men to rape women can possibly be "loving".  Isaiah 13, Hosea 13.  Either the god of the bible has a history of actions utterly inconsistent with "love", or the definition of "love" becomes intolerably and uselessly malleable.

If we are supposed to believe that God "loves" the women that he causes other men to rape, that is a horrifically ignorant and desperate view that that nobody finds the least bit compelling...except Christian apologists whose solitary goal in life is to transform ancient tribal barbarian philosophy from the OT prophets, into something more acceptable to modern western notions of justice and common sense.

In other words, I begin by creating a hunger for the meal we are about to eat.

In other words, like a salesman, you create a problem for which your materials, on sale now,  provide a solution.  Standard operating procedure for any car salesman.

I try to demonstrate the urgency of the questions so the answers will be embraced more eagerly.

Very sad that an alleged "bible-believer" like you causes youth to eagerly involve themselves in answering atheism, when your own NT directly forbids any Christian from becoming involved in such "foolish speculations".  You need to check yourself, Wallace, you are missing the forest for the trees.

If you’re a “One Dollar Apologist” and you’re struggling to introduce Christian Case Making to your Christian brothers and sisters, consider the importance of role playing. If nothing else, present the opposing case prior to making the case for Christianity. When you demonstrate the strength of the challenge, people are far more willing to strengthen their ability to respond.

But whatever you do, don't trust in the power of the Holy Spirit nor in the power of prayer.  No, you are hopelessly stuck in mire unless and until you purchase Wallace's materials. Maybe he can explain how the bible alone can be sufficient for faith and practice, yet also be insufficient until it is supplemented by commentaries written by sinful men far less inspired than the biblical authors.