Though I still love Redeemer's class this session (Bijan's Apologetics - "Public Faith") overall, this last session, substituted by C.E., who already emphasized at the beginning that this is not his usual class (he teaches introduction to non-believers) and that he is just a "facilitator" (jokingly, I think), the group thing was a disappointment because we're supposed to come up with a tough question non-Christians ask, two in my group (David & Esther) just kept getting off topic, discussing about how people cannot handle Christianity or how cute Sunday school kids are. I didn't say much except trying to point out what the objective of the group was. Unfortunately, one ended up thinking nobody else other than he knew theology because looked like he just like showing off he reads a lot of "theology" - reminds me of another guy in Craig's other class - poor Craig, the other one thought she knew all the answers which one of her answers (though I give her credit for answering certain answers with sound doctrine, and she did take notes class, she also made the distinction between sinners and good/nice people - Ravenhill quote, and also the fact that it is unfair to not want punishment for sin yet gladly accept the fruits of good works - answering David's troubled universalism with a Dr. Tong logic - she may have been answering David out of natural/spiritual instinct, there's no allusion to Dr. Tong's material) was alluding to purgatory-like solution to question regarding people who have never heard of the gospel. I was surprised that Craig just sat there and smiled.
Craig did not realize or agree that Bijan's (and my) stand on presupposition apologetics as the foundation over the other 3 kinds of apologetics (natural,experiential, cumulative).
Due to experience and time constraint, I was prepared not to get involve. Given the chance I would tell Bijan he shouldn't quit on us like that. Craig shouldn't have agreed to substitute, but it would be so hard to be not so accommodating, perhaps Kyle knew and didn't come.
A: You give yourself too much in that class...thus the "anxiety attack".
R: Find, next time, when Craig asks us to do something in a group, or when facing similar situation, I'll just be quiet and say "I have nothing to say/I have no question, pass".
A: Yes, like treating all as enemy first. Determine who they are, let them talk first.
R: A battle...spiritual warfare!
A: Yes!
R: But I should treat them as Christians, as brothers and sisters, in spite of some phonies. Thus, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Take the initiative to open up.
A: But you already knew about Redeemer's certain faulty policies, despite their gospel-centered pursuit.
R: I think I saw Esther the pianist chef. But that was from HK. This one looked like a Filipino.
A: What does that has to do with anything?
R: Nothing. Wait...that reminds me of certain judgment I had on her which identifies with the groups. But I may be wrong.
A: Focus.
R: Fine. I looked up to Craig.
A: Well now you know.
R: I supposed I need to be very sensitive and alert when some leader, be it substitute or not, indicates at the beginning how this is not their usual class. If that is so, full co-operation should not be given until their true motive is identified.
A: Yes, but what if they don't state that at the beginning.
R: Then I'm screwed. Perhaps, I should already identify Craig's character in "The fellowship of the saints" (is he shy? is he anti-fellowship? etc.) and work my method of approach to his class from there. If it were not Craig...well, but Bijan did say "we are in good hands", "great news - Craig bla bla bla", etc. So, I may still be screwed.
A: Lesson learned.
R: I learned of Craig and Bijan. That's about it.
A: Be sure you remember it well.
R: I will.