With no apology!
Calvin Smith interviews
Christian apologist, Pastor Joe Boot
Published: 10 November 2008(GMT+10)
Joe Boot is an apologist, educator, author and pastor. He is senior pastor of Westminster
Chapel in Toronto, the President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
and the former Executive Director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)
Canada; he continues to serve as an adjunct speaker with RZIM. He has spoken in
over 25 countries in numerous universities, seminaries, churches, colleges and conferences1 and has publically debated
leading atheists. Joe is a graduate in theology from Birmingham Christian College
in England and is completing his post graduate research masters program in Missiology
with Cliff College and the University of Manchester.
His apologetic works include Searching for Truth, Why I Still Believe and
How then Shall We Answer? He is visiting lecturer at the Oxford Centre
for Christian apologetics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford England, and is a contributing
author to the major apologetics volume Beyond Opinion. He lives near Toronto
with his wife Jenny and three children.
Calvin Smith caught up with him at his study to ask some questions.
Calvin: Joe, why do you see the creation/evolution issue as important in proclaiming
the gospel and upholding the authority of Scripture?
Joe Boot: Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption
stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we
play games with Genesis.
The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience,
one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem
of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.
I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim
the gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect
clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.
The truth is that any honest reading of the Bible reveals nothing of evolutionism.
How often do creation/evolution issues come up in your public speaking engagements?
I am almost always asked questions about origins in open forums and debates. A sad
fact is that when speaking I often find the orthodox doctrine of creation more viciously
attacked in seminary contexts than in secular universities.
Recently I was conversing with a lady who came to faith because she had key questions
about creation and found her way to the CMI website, found answers and committed
her life to Christ! In my experience, the question of origins has a permanent relevance
in evangelism and apologetics.
Some Christians say the subject of origins is a side issue. From someone who’s
been out there among the people for a long time, what is your opinion?
Suggesting this is a ‘side issue’ not only reveals a lack of exposure
to skeptics and seekers in our time, but a profound ignorance of the Bible and the
elementary questions of philosophy. Can you imagine, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine,
Aquinas, Calvin, Pascal, Copernicus, Galileo, or even Darwin, Marx, and Freud referring
to the question of origins as a ‘side issue’?
I believe many Christians feel ill-equipped to deal with the subject as it is almost
never preached about. However, the church will continue to be irrelevant to our
time, if we persist in such thoughtless evasions.
As someone who works with intellectuals, do you find it difficult to defend a literal
6-day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago, when the common consensus is a ‘billions
of years’ scenario?
I am determined to defend the whole counsel of God, not just the bits I
think I can get away with without offending people or without loss of scholarly
‘respectability’. However, as Jesus said, we should seek to be ‘wise as serpents and gentle as doves’ (Matthew
10:16). Thus, strategically, I rarely start with a question like the age of the
earth.
I tend to begin with critical questions about knowledge itself to remove
the rug from under the feet of the skeptic. This method tends to provide a more-than-adequate
platform for the questioner to confess their ignorance. The skeptic is often simply
trying to embarrass or discredit you by setting up questions they think will result
in scorn and derision when a biblical answer is forthcoming.
Many Christian apologists who today argue for the authenticity of Scripture as plainly
written in the New Testament also claim that Genesis 1–11 in the Old Testament
is allegory. What is your response to that?
When we talk about ‘allegory’ we need to consider something important.
If we believe a certain passage of Scripture to be allegorical or figurative, we
need to ask what earlier literal antecedent we have on which an allegorical
and figurative interpretation can be based.
Since Genesis is the seed plot of the Bible and the most referenced book in the
New Testament, and since all key Christian doctrine finds it foundation here, what
earlier revelation is there that provides the historical material upon which we
may ground an allegorical interpretation of Genesis? Genesis is the history upon
which all later figurative uses rest!
As a subscriber to CMI’s Creation magazine and Journal of Creation,
how do you find they help?
Firstly, I find them very encouraging and uplifting to read. My children can also
enjoy sections of Creation magazine. Both these journals help keep me up
to date with some of the latest news, discoveries and theories, and the excellent
articles and analyses actually become very useful in open forum settings during
Q&A in universities, etc.
The more technical Journal of Creation is especially useful to me in this
regard. In fact, I recently used a superb article on logic from this journal that
dealt with the need for faith even in logical theorems, since not all axioms in
any system are self-evident. I have had years of benefit reading both publications.
You have debated leading skeptics quite successfully. What is the biggest problem
with the humanistic worldview and how do you address it in a debate situation?
I focus my barrage on what might be called the ‘pre-conditions of intelligibility’.
For example, in any debate, all protagonists are affirming and invoking
invariant logical relations, a rational structure of the mind, a ‘real rational
world’, and usually are claiming the ‘moral’ high ground. However,
to be coherent and intelligible, a worldview must be able to account for these most
basic assumptions.
Consider the atheist who has a universe devoid of design, ultimate purpose, and
without transcendent meaning or direction. It is irrational by definition. Since
the human mind is part of this chaotic and chance universe, why should we trust
the deliberations of our minds that have arisen from mindless matter and irrational
animals?
Furthermore, to claim that one view is superior to another, which is pre-supposed
by all in a debate, is to make both a metaphysical and moral judgment.
However the humanist has only atomic accidents as a basis for metaphysical judgments
and preference and taste for ethical judgments, not moral truth or law that transcends
time, culture and taste, and so has no basis for either form of judgment.
I have yet to find a professor who can respond with any coherence and not be left
bewildered by this simple challenge. I therefore point out that only on Christian
theistic assumptions does a debate make any sense and that by turning up my opponent
has unwittingly conceded the debate.
Do you have a favourite story to share from your extensive travel and lecturing
experiences?
Photos Stockxpert
Several! On one occasion, under armed escort, I spoke in an Islamic University in
Pakistan about peace with God through Jesus Christ. At the end I could see tears
running from some of the young women in their headdresses.
Another was a leading British meteorologist (previously an evolutionist) coming
to tell me that my lectures on creation and the Bible had deeply impacted him and
caused him to rethink his view. Already a Christian, he became a biblical creationist,
finding a new consistency and cogency in his faith.
Finally, at a packed debate co-organized by the humanist society and Campus for
Christ at a Canadian University, I felt the grace of God helping and strengthening
me. My closing remarks were met with pin-drop silence. The atheist was bewildered
and concluded with an incoherent moral rant against the Bible! One atheist student
filled in his reaction card suggesting the debate had been ‘fixed’ by
Christians bringing in an atheist with no arguments!
The truth is that the hardest task in the world is building a convincing case for
atheism, for which there are no good arguments, so we must have some pity on the
humanist!
Joe, can you tell us what you think God might have in store for you in your future
ministry?
Well, we have some very exciting projects and plans that we are working on. We are
developing and growing a new urban church2
to have a deep impact upon the city and especially on the massive University population.
We are also continuing to develop the recently formed Ezra Institute, our
journal, seminar programs and events. Our goal in all this is to bring glory to
God by turning Canadians and this culture back toward the God of the Bible.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
Notes
- Including Eton College Windsor, Oxford University, University
of Toronto, University of Waterloo, London School of Theology, Virginia Tech, Forman
University in Lahore, Pakistan. Return to text.
- Westminster Chapel, <www.westminsterchapel.ca>. Return to text.
|
