In Depth:  Stephen Lloyd

The destruction of the Canaanites is horrific. But as I explained last month, it is not immoral. Within the framework provided by the Bible, what happened to the Canaanites was not an act of aggression but a righteous act of justice. The Bible has a coherent explanation, but is it plausible? However logical the argument, it will be hard to convince someone that the slaughter of a whole nation — men, women, children and animals can be morally right.

How do we overcome this plausibility barrier? Firstly, we need to point out that what we are ready to accept as ‘obviously true’ is very subjective. It is dependent on what the culture around us assumes as obviously true and what we ourselves want to hear. E.g. ten years ago that lasting growth could be built on debt seemed very plausible.

Common objections to Christianity are often seen as obstacles to evangelism.

Even when asked with sincerity, they are considered distractions that should be neutralised as quickly as possible so we can focus on the gospel. Using the example of the destruction of the Canaanites, I want to show that hostile questions, rightly handled, need not be distractions but provide excellent entry points to the gospel.