engage a teen by himself, he will likely feel more threatened than when situated within his cluster. In turn, he may either be closed to discussion, or share agreeable yet contrived answers to avoid any sense of awkwardness. In the cluster, however, he is free to voice his opinion as the group offers a plausibility structure for his views. While discussions of religion are somewhat taboo, most teens will speak up in response to an open ended question concerning morality, origins, purpose, truth, the meaning of life, death and spirituality in general. As a group, they may even see it as a challenge to show the superiority of their view. By employing Schaeffer’s approach with a cluster, we may simultaneously influence each individual’s secular presuppositions toward greater openness to the Bible. An antagonistic group, for instance, may reject the Bible because of its miraculous accounts. The apologist may then inquire, “What makes you so sure miracles can’t happen? Are miracles, and a miracle-working God, incompatible with science? You say that science has disproved God’s existence—but how does a material process assess an immaterial being? How much of all knowledge would you need to possess to say for sure God doesn’t exist? If the God of the Bible exists, and if He designed these laws in the first place, then isn’t it possible that He could temporarily suspend them?” Such questions mitigate their hostility by revealing problematic presuppositions. They may then be open to hear how Biblical presuppositions provide a more sure foundation for the modern scientific endeavour. In sum, while Schaeffer is the least current of the three apologists we consider, his apologetic still speaks to contemporary western adolescents. The aforementioned modifications to Schaeffer’s approach—less forceful claims as part of a genuine dialogue in a group context—may serve to more effectively open ears by undermining secularism.
129