The Myth of Neutrality
The unbeliever is never neutral, and you, Christian, shouldn’t be either.
What do you think of when you hear the word "apologetics"? Do you think of debates? Is it an endeavor where two parties come to a neutral place and present all the facts at their disposal?
Well, the answer is simple, despite claims to the contrary. Yes, it is a pitting of two worldviews, and no, it is never neutral. That is the first rule of apologetics, and it stems from a proper understanding of the Scriptures.
First, we are told in the Scriptures that we cannot be neutral when defending the Christian worldview; we must sanctify Christ as God in our lives (1 Peter 3:15).
Second, that despite their protests to the contrary, the Bible tells us that our opponents are likewise not neutral; never were, and never will be (Rom 1:18-32).
All of us have a worldview, which is comprised of three things: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. As Greg Bahnsen once pointed out, the question we are asking is which worldview makes human experience (i.e., anything from paying taxes to having a debate about God's existence) intelligible (i.e., meaningful). As R.C. Sproul pointed out, we "must view everything —economics, philosophy, biology, mathematics— in light of the overarching reality of the character of God" (Everyone is a Theologian, p. 19).
It imperative to a fruitful discussion to remember that everyone has a worldview, no matter how poorly or inarticulately stated or defended, and everyone has an "authority" to which they appeal to defend said view. “A Christian apologetic grows out of, and is shaped according to, total dedication to the wisdom of the Logos as expressed in His inscripturated Word—not self-sufficient [and autonomous] human 'wisdom'… [therefore] Christian apologetics must begin and end with Him, who is the alpha and the omega, the one who only and always reigns as Lord” (Greg Bahnsen). Anything else softens the fundamental antithesis with the unbeliever.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility to set aside that which informs your view of knowledge, reality, and ethics to argue for your position from outside the framework of your position. Besides, God is not in the dock; man is.
We are not under any obligation to set aside our pre-commitments when talking with unbelievers, and we should not be surprised that the unbeliever sees this as "biased." Essentially what we are saying is that the Christian worldview is the only reasonable worldview, not the most reasonable one from among many.
No matter how the unbelievers protest this, the unbeliever is no less biased. Whether it is eastern philosophy or scientism, their authority will not be put aside when they argue against the Scriptures' claims. Why should we set aside the fount of knowledge (Col 2:3) when we defend the Christian worldview?
So, what do we do when the unbeliever tells us that we are closed-minded? We must point out that the unbeliever is not neutral either; they have appealed to an authority that precludes the Christian position's truth. We cannot escape the fact that no human interprets events or truth claims without a set of assumptions and pre-commitments. We all have presuppositional commitments before we begin, much less conclude any examination of the various hypotheses presented to us.
We contend with each other's underlying assumptions about epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, and it is our job, as Christians, to challenge the unbeliever's final stand. This means that we must examine and critique the grounds on which our opponent stands and show them that only within the Christian worldview framework could we know anything at all. To do this and to do it well, we cannot be neutral.