When evidentialist bloggers and apologists attack presuppositionalism, I sometimes see well-meaning people tell them that they should just watch or interview Jeff Durbin or Sye Ten Bruggencate. Now, I've already had my say about the Syeclones. Regarding Durbin:
i) My knowledge of Durbin is admittedly quite cursory. It's my impression that his constituency overlaps with the ill-fated Mark Driscoll. In a way he's the successor to Driscoll, but without Driscoll's inner demons. Due to his martial arts background, Durbin can reach a demographic group that's less accessible to starchy preachers and apologists.
ii) That said, Christian apologetics is not about handing out participation awards. There's no substitute for winning the argument. I appreciate Durbin's ministry, but from what I can tell, he'd be no match against atheists like Graham Oppy, Elliott Sober, or Erik Wielenberg (to name a few).
iii) His fans might complain that my standards are elitist. But there's a necessarily niche for elitism in apologetics. Although we know from 1 Cor 1-3 that high IQ doesn't get you to heaven, high IQ is a great advantage in apologetics, since there are super smart unbelievers. It's important to have Christians who can operate at the same level as the intellectual competition. We need folks on our side who can beat secular philosophers, Bible scholars, and scientists at their own game. That doesn't mean every Christian apologist, or even most, have to be at the top of the Bell curve, but we're in trouble if we don't some who can engage the best the opposition has to offer. That's why I plug Reformed apologists like James Anderson, Vern Poythress, and Greg Welty. That's why I go outside the Reformed stable to plug philosophers, scholars, and scientists who aren't Reformed, but can outargue their secular (or Muslim, or Mormon) opponents. If you get into the octagon with an opponent well above your weight class, you're likely to be pounded into the ground.
