On the surface, J.P. Moreland seems like a sensible guy. He explains the origin of fundamentalism (a backlash against evolution, 19th century biblical criticisms, and other modern concepts) and how fundamentalists have withdrawn from the intellectual world. Christians, Moreland argues, should not be this way. Rather, they should train their minds and, as the title implies, love God with their mind. I don't disagree with this.

It is Moreland's application of this thesis that is so repugnant. Essentially, he explains that scientists, people who believe in evolution, people who are pro-choice, homosexuals, Catholics, and society, in general, are all out to make a mockery of evangelicals. Therefore, the whole reason that one should cultivate one's intellect is so that one can argue with these heathens and win.

Despite the fact that Moreland nearly deifies wisdom and knowledge, it still leads him to absurd views. The absurdity of many passages made we nearly laugh out loud.

. . . the church must overcome the neglect of the critical area of the development of the Christian mind, perhaps the most integral component of the believers sanctification. - Now THAT is some strange theology . . .

A few years ago I conducted a series of evangelistic messages for a church in New York. The series was in a high school gym, and both believer and unbelievers attended each night. The first evening I gave arguments for the existence of God from science and philosophy. Before closing in prayer, I entertained several questions from the audience. One woman (who was a Christian) complained about my talk, charging that if I "proved" the existence of God, I would leave no room for faith. I responded by saying that if she were right, then we should pray that currently available evidence for God would evaporate and be refused so there would be even more room for faith! Obviously, her view of faith utterly detached itself from reason. - Professor Moreland: Please see your own section on the "straw man argument."

I am far from certain on many Christian beliefs I hold. I lean toward the view that the days of Genesis are vast periods of time and not literal twenty-four-hour periods. But about two days of the week I flip-flop and accept the literal view. Based on my study, I cannot convince myself either way, and I'm about sixty-forty in favor of the old-earth position. - So J.P. is totally uncertain of which of these two views (sorry J.P., it's neither) but he wants to convince the world of their validity. Got it.

Let's give ourselves permission to correct one another's grammar with a gentle, nonarrogant [sic] spirit in our fellowship meetings. Isn't a developed intellectual love for God worth the price of an initial embarrassment at such correction? - LOL wut?

As someone who studied the ancient Near East (or "Mideast" as Moreland calls it), this just made me cringe:

It is sometimes said that Genesis does not try to "prove" the existence of God, it merely assumes it. But this is inaccurate . . . . In fact, a widespread pagan belief was the idea that each spring the gods copulated, their seed fell to the ground, and that was why crops sprouted and grew each year. Based on that belief, yearly pagan rituals included frenzied orgies to induce the gods to copulate and insure a new season of crops. Genesis takes this view to take and presents a testable claim: The God of Israel delegated to living things the intrinsic power to reproduce after their own kinds, an odd and foreign idea to the nations of the ancient Mideast. But this claim carried with it a test. If the pagans ceased their orgies, then no crops would grow if their views were correct and the gods needed inducement to copulate. But if the biblical view were correct, crops would continue to arise. - J.P., see your section about "Red Herrings." Also, go do some more research on the ancient Near East.

Apologetics can be defined as that New Testament ministry . . . " - New Testament ministry? Are you joking?