The podcast of my interview on Greg Koukl’s radio show is up on the Stand to Reason website. Click here.
I had a wonderful time with Greg on the show! He is a great host.
His interview basically consisted of how I became a Christian apologist, my degree through Biola University, the Certified Apologetics Instructor program through the Southern Baptist Convention, the uniqueness of a female apologist(and my call for more of us ladies), my ministry, and my recent debate and encounter at the Arab Fest up in Michigan.
Thanks to the staff at the studio – Barbara, Melinda, and Greg – for making this a relaxed and enjoyable event!
MJ
Mary Jo,
I just heard you on Greg's podcast. You did a great job. I really got encouragement from you. I have started holding apologetics events and am really excited about how things have been coming together. Keep up the great work.
Mitch
http://www.gotnodoubt.com
Hi,
I would like to know who are the other female christian apologist?
Any youtube videos?
Rdgs
Frency
Hey Mary Jo,
I just listened to the podcast of your interview on STR; congratulations and God bless your ministry!!
Fellow poolside apologist 1996,
Mike Sewell
PS – E-mail me so we can catch up.
……crickets…..ummmm, that would be 2006, not 1996.
Blessings,
Mike
I'm Edward, and what is "unique" about female apologists? It's a standing rule in neo-Christianity to set the women apart on lame excuses of their uniqueness. The first female uniqueness started in the garden when the serpent set apart Eve. There is no place for "apologetics" in the Church (nor any such thing as "womens' ministries"); we're supposed to win souls, not arguments. God does not need lawyers to win His cases; he calls real saints to win souls with His self-sustaining gospel. This MJ woman is an opportunist with a racket. Get honest work, MJ, and quit your hustling before you put yourself in the same place with the false prophets and "unique" prophetesses. Of course there are smart mouth answers for this.
Charles,
First, it is the host of the program who suggested the "uniqueness" of female apologists, because there are statistically a lot less female then male apologists. Your post insinuated that I was really playing this aspect up to promote myself. My work in the area of women's ministry focuses on replication: teaching women a love of learning, specifically in the areas of apologetics and theology. My goal is to encourage more women to do what I do.
Second, you have never contacted me to ask me anything about this ministry or why I do it. On what authority do you speak about me?
Third, is the tone of your post supposed to be reflective of the true soul-winning approach?
Fourth, I have never said "winning" arguments are more important than winning souls.
Before you publicly attack a person's work in the Kingdom of God, it is important to supply substantial and thoughtful supporting evidence. And it is important to contact that Christian directly if you are a fellow believer united by the Spirit of God. According to John 17:21-24, Jesus himself states that the way the world will know he is God's Son is by the oneness of his followers. Your post is divisive and slanderous.
As for apologetics in the church. The word is a transliterated Greek word meaning "defense" and can be found in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:15 – "always being prepared to make a defense (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Also, Paul gives a defense of his beliefs to King Agrippa in Acts 26. So I disagree with you on the value of apologetics training.
As for women's ministries: Titus 2 instructs the older women to teach the younger women.
MJ
MJ: I confess being caught flat-footed on apologia, ironic since I study the Greek, but it changes nothing. There is no such thing as "womens' ministries", and the older women are not told to instruct the young women in the junk doctrines and dodges meant to usurp husbands. Your women's ministries are in the whole NT and those inconvenient instructions of Paul, that Christian womanhood universally ducks. Church girls aren't even past their 'teens, and sometimes past puberty and they already know what I call the woman game. Where are they learning that? You're still operating a racket, except you're smart enough to cover it better. Get honest work and quit operating your private sidetrack gospel. The first womans' apologist was the serpent spirit at work now. Charles
MJ: Oh, and one other thing: why the universal rule that women have to be set apart? I know there are 'mens' studies' and they're a loser farce, a sop thrown to the hapless men. There is nothing unique about women except they're the line of least resistance, the weaker vessel Peter warned about, and they need to be shielded from hostile influence in separate "ministries" intended to alienate them. Jesus did not make women "prominent"; he made nobody prominent. You're hijacking Christ and the women by exploiting their greater vulnerability. The apo-logia concept has been sidetracked into private arguments and interpretations. I was in this before you were born, so don't try to snow me. I'm 66 and have been struggling in this apostate faith since 1964. There is nothing new about you, but you are smart and not to be underestimated. This is the last time I waste my time with you, so feel free to erase my place here. Charles. God, this is bad. Is there anybody in media Christianity that does not have a racket going?
Charles-Edward,
You are out of line, sir. Your comments do not reflect the spirit of Christ, only divisiveness. Disagreements are one thing, but you have ventured much further.
For a man of 66 years, I am disgusted by your words of malice here.
Your apology is expected.
Rev. Roger L. Sharp
Roger L. Sharp: When you apologize to Oprah, re: Oprah's false salvation, Oprah's false god – I will apologize to you. What makes you think you can snipe Oprah, but are sheltered from criticism of yourself? If you dish it out, you should be prepared to take it. I know your profession is much closer to the truth than Oprah's; I just think you are one of the growing breed of opportunists that exploit the gospel ministry. I think you're the new breed of Pharisees. What makes you think you decide what is out of line? You don't have a line for me to be out of. Your Bible is full of divisive criticisms that indict their objects for being hell-bound, and they are true. But leave it to neo-Christians to use their freedom of religion to curb free speech. I happen to be an American citizen and a Viet-Nam veteran who has faced death, and I will speak my mind as I see fit within legal bounds, not yours. I did not even plan this; I was looking for Koukl's web site so I could tell him I don't think we should argue the faith. Having an answer – apologia – for those who ask questions is right; making a career out of arguing and debating,is the really destructive divisiveness that has split the church world into hundreds of factions, is not right. I generally don't get into the gotcha' games because they are fruitless and I always lose. You new-age Pharisees are too smart for me, and it was not wise of me to get into this. So I am out of this, and I am unsubscribing from Koukl's program. It's too bad; I used to admire him – he's very smart – until I realized that all he does is promote debate; whereas the gospel is without controversy – I got the Greek right on that one. I have learned from this to be much more careful and research the original context and meaning of a key word – I usually do – before I get into anything, with anyone who may be as sharp as your wife, I presume. It's just unfortunate, all this talent going onto a Christian sidetrack that exploits and deludes women. I will not answer any further communications.
//What makes you think you can snipe Oprah, but are sheltered from criticism of yourself? //
I analytically criticize Oprah’s beliefs which lead me to state that her beliefs are not true, and therefore false. I do not attack Oprah, herself, as you are doing to me.
//If you dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.//
I do not dish out ad hominem. That is what you have done here, which is why I said your post was slanderous. Offer some substantial evidence from my work that shows I am attacking people personally and do not care about their salvation.
//What makes you think you decide what is out of line?//
I investigate and analyze ideas about this life and share my conclusions. People then discuss those ideas with me: “debate.”
//You don't have a line for me to be out of.//
True. From your posting, it appears as though you are not responsible to any particular set of morals or truths, so you get to do whatever you want and treat people however you feel like. This has been aptly displayed in your posting here. Now, why should I seek to follow after what you believe if this sort of posting is the result of your beliefs?
//I happen to be an American citizen and a Viet-Nam veteran who has faced death, and I will speak my mind as I see fit within legal bounds, not yours.//
I did not say you couldn’t speak your mind. I asked for evidence to back up slanderous statements about my work.
It is because of people who are willing to serve in our military, like you, that American citizens have freedom of speech. However, this freedom also includes people who see things differently from you, like me.
//I don't think we should argue the faith.//
Back that up with evidence from the New Testament.
//Making a career out of arguing and debating,is the really destructive divisiveness that has split the church world into hundreds of factions, is not right.//
I do not have a career in “arguing and debating.” Neither does Greg Koukl. We train Christians to know why they believe what they believe. We train them to interact with the culture they live in. We train them in Biblical truth. And, yes, we also both engage in formal, public debates. Have you been to or seen one of Koukl’s debates? What is your main objection to his words or attitude? Which debate did this occur in? I’ll go check it out to try to understand why you find this so offensive.
//I generally don't get into the gotcha' games because they are fruitless and I always lose. You new-age Pharisees are too smart for me, and it was not wise of me to get into this.//
This is not an answer for why you attacked me personally. You attacked my character without providing evidence. I asked for evidence. Your answer was to say you are not smart enough to play games. That is not an answer. If you attack my character and say that I’m wrong—according to the Bible or to “Christianity”—then you should at least provide reasons why…other than your dislike for what I do.
// whereas the gospel is without controversy – I got the Greek right on that one//
What do you mean that the Gospel is without controversy? Jesus said in Luke 12:49-53 that belief in him would cause division. Jesus was put on the cross and killed for his message of being God in the flesh. Paul, throughout the book of Acts, is repeatedly stirring cities into such uproar with the Gospel message that he is shouted down, thrown out of the city, beaten, jailed, and stoned. Paul also discusses his own persecution and trials throughout his epistles. Some of these things were written to the followers of Christ so they would know to expect suffering in his name. In 1 Peter 3: 8-17, we can read that they will suffer and should consider it a privilege. In other words, controversy is all around the Gospel from the very beginning.
//It's just unfortunate, all this talent going onto a Christian sidetrack that exploits and deludes women. I will not answer any further communications.//
Again, this is non-evidenced slander; specifically that I exploit people (which insinuates an intentional action) and delude people (which could imply intentionality or unintentionality).
So, my conclusion is that whatever you have to offer, as far as beliefs about God, this is the way that it looks when lived out… It is mean-spirited. It is slanderous. It does not value integrity: I have asked for why you didn’t contact me first about your concerns before publicly attacking my character. It does not value knowledge: you have repeatedly levied an accusation that I am "smart." It has no set of values that a person should attempt to live by. It places emphasis on the self: whatever you think is right is right…no evidence required.
I do not believe this to be the outworking of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
MJ
To Bob Sharp: Perfect. I knew you'd beat me on everything. I'll just answer one thing: I quoted, partially, because I expected you to grasp the context, "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness…", I'm sure you can quote it from memory; I had to look it up. The 'without controversy' part is in terms of God's entire, holy nature that is not subject to dispute. When we argue God's nature and message, we sit at the adversary's table and play his game. As soon as you do that, he wins, in his terms, and you reduce God to the equivalent of political argument. Of course God cannot be reduced and has nothing to do with this. Read 1st Peter 3.15 again and see if it is a license to debate. Then I would read 2nd Tim. 2.23-26, about "… foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." I believe in learning from my experience, even at my age, and I am taking it to heart about reacting with slam-bang statements instead of taking the time to think prudently. I am not taking back what I said, just the way I said it. Of course no one is going to prove what a careerist is doing in a soft and abstract subject like theology. I believe you are operating a Bible career based largely on strife and controversy. I will try to be more prudent and concise, however. I just get aggravated about the exploitation of women, especially by women. There are a lot of very smart people out there, that will outpoint me every time if I'm not more careful. Now, why don't we quit this? I'm going to unsubscribe with STR so they won't waste postage on me; I'm not sending them any money. Congratulations on your book; I'm sure it's well done. If you need to get in the last retort, go ahead and have your satisfaction. I've seen your picture and you look like you need it. I promise not to answer.