MeToo??

[tango]

Straying from biblical truth isn't the sort of thing people care about unless they regard the Bible as representing truth. In this age where belief in "sky fairies" is irrational and belief in whatever agrees with you is apparently rational, in a world where people vocally reject what Donald Trump says because he isn't a scientist yet are happy to take climate advice from a teenage girl who hasn't even finished school, it's not going to be an easy sell.

 

[Ackbach]

It would make sense for the French to be partly to blame for that line of thinking.

How do we address the way they perceive things since they have strayed from biblical truth?

tango has a good reply. It is a tough sell. In fact, it's so tough it's impossible. The fact is, we're talking about spiritual matters, and without the Holy Spirit working, none of us see any of this! (So boasting is excluded. Any truth we have, we have been given - it has been revealed to us by the only living, omniscient God.) The epistemology of the Christian is remarkably simple and straight-forward: the Holy Spirit convinces me that the Bible is true. That's it. That's how I know anything. It starts with God, not with me.

While I'm not sure I agree with all of Van Til's apologetics, I do think he's right on one thing: it's not a great idea to "try to find common ground" with the unbeliever. Particularly with critical theory and intersectionality, your common ground is nearly non-existent. Your best bet, I believe, is to stand strong on the Scriptures, and pray that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes.

The trickiest part, in my opinion, is that critical theory and intersectionality don't even use language the same way. They certainly don't care three straws for logic or consistency, so long, involved flights of absolutely correct, sound logic, reasoning from biblical principles, are not likely to catch their fancy.

 

[tango]

This is all well and good where it comes to evangelism - we don't have the common ground that's relevant with an unbeliever.

Where things of a more societal and political nature are concerned we often do have common ground in that many times people are trying to solve comparable problems, even if we go about it in very different ways. We might disagree on whether Donald Trump is a good person or not but the chances are there will be at least some political initiatives of his that people agree on, even if the only reason some agree is that they don't know who proposed it (and, in the interest of balance, just as some on the left are more likely to support a policy if they don't know Trump suggested it, so some on the right were in favor of changes to the health insurance system until they learned that the thing they just supported was called Obamacare).