THEOLOGY
AND APOLOGETICS
What
is apologetics? How is it related
to theology? These questions have
concerned the greatest minds of the Church because apologetics is
inescapable. It has been forced
upon believers in every generation including ours. How should we in the twenty-first
century reply to arguments against biblical faith that neighbors and
fellow-workers read in prominent news magazines? How should Bible-believing students and
faculty members answer hostile criticism within academic establishments that
have become totally compromised by pagan ideas? How should we respond to apostles of
political correctness when they accuse Christianity of inherent religious bigotry? How do Christians engage unbelief in
their children, spouses, or parents?
What should be our answer to Christ-denying claims by the many religions
and cults? Today, more than ever,
apologetics plays a vital role in Christian
witness.
Thankfully,
as Solomon wisely noted millennia ago, there is nothing new under the sun ( Eccl. 1:9). Early Christians also faced intense
political and social challenges to major truths of the faith. Unbelief, then as now, attacked the
central Christian miracle of the resurrection ( Mat. 28:12; Mat. 28:13; Mat. 28:14; Mat. 28:15; Acts 17:32; Acts 26:8). Then as now, pagan nature worship made
the Creator-creature distinction almost inconceivable ( Acts 14:8 -18; Acts 17:22 -31). Ancient political leaders branded early
Christianity an enemy of the state long before modern Communists, Muslims, and
ACLU lawyers ( John 11:48 -53; Acts 4:13 -22; Acts 6:11 -15; Acts 17:5 -9; Acts 19:21 -41; Acts 21:27 -31). Unbelieving family members questioned
the faith of the earliest Christians ( 1 Pet 3:15). Present-day unbelievers, in spite of
their misplaced self-confidence, are no more intelligent than their pagan
predecessors centuries ago. Thank
God that He has preserved in Scripture sufficient revelation for us to manage
each of these circumstances ( 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim.
3:17).
Today,
the English word apology in its everyday usage expresses regret for some wrong
action as in “I apologize”. However, its earlier and specialized meaning is
quite the opposite. Its specialized
meaning comes from the Greek word, apologia, from which it was
transliterated. A prominent example
of ancient usage is the title of Plato’s dialog, The Apology, which
presents the courtroom defense of Socrates against his accusers. Similar usage occurs in the New
Testament ( Acts 22:1; Acts 25:16; Phil. 1:7; Phil. 1:16; 2 Tim. 4:16). Far from meaning regret for a wrong
action, these uses of apologia
refer to a carefully reasoned defense
against questioning or wrongful accusation by recognized
authorities. The word
can also refer to a more informal defense outside of the courtroom against
personal questioning or accusation ( 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; 1 Pet. 3:15). The intent of an apologia is to win over the person being
addressed, to change his mind about what is
true.
Whether
before an unbelieving family member or a political office holder, every
Christian should be ready to give a defense (apologia) for his or her faith ( 1 Pet. 3:15). Christian leaders, especially, are to be
characterized by their apologetic ability to refute those who attack
Christianity ( ). Why should we be
any less skilled at thinking and communicating than unbelievers? Do we not seek to interpret our everyday
experience in terms of the Word of God so that we can walk by faith? Do we really think that unbelieving
reporters, lawyers, university lecturers, politicians, or neighbors engage in
any deeper thinking on a daily basis about ordinary living? As a matter of fact, we ought to be
encouraged because the Bible says that no unbeliever can ever successfully justify his unbelief (
Rom. 1:20). It’s the unbelievers who have no
answers--not the Christians!
Following the prophets and apostles, therefore, we should not be afraid
to reason about our faith.
To
forsake all reasoning with inquirers or accusers is to engage in fideism---the idea that faith cannot be
discussed in a rational manner or argued about fruitfully. Offering only autobiographical
accounts of inner feelings and personal experience without justification for the
gospel is fideism, not apologetics.
Tragically, fideism in practice is often a cover for weak faith. If we avoid reasoning with outside
accusers, we probably are avoiding reasoning with our own internal temptations
and doubts. We may be hiding
spiritually, fearful that our biblical faith might not be true after all. A genuine and maturing relationship with
God inevitably involves reasoning through His Word amid the challenges of daily
life. Recall the intense reasoning
of the psalmist with God over His ways and how he concludes with a deepened,
restful, and worshipful faith in the Lord (e.g., Psa 2; 10; 13; 44; etc.). God created us, after all, to set our
lives upon real truth that ultimately derives only from Him. To get to that faith rest, every
believer has to engage in the same kind of thinking used in apologetics. At
the bottom line apologetics really is nothing more than a focused version of our
responses to everyday temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. No believer, therefore,
should think apologetics to be a strange skill impossible to master.
One
word of caution when studying apologetics:
apologetics can attract people who are naturally argumentative and proud
of their intellects. Unless it is
done in submission to the leading of the Holy Spirit, it can easily degenerate
to a carnal one-upmanship, a social game that witnesses not to the life of
Christ but to plain arrogance.
Peter warns us to give our apologetic “with meekness and fear” ( 1 Pet. 3:15). The same humility toward the Lord that
He requires in personal trials of faith must be present in apologetic
activities, too.
THE
RELATIONSHIP OF APOLOGETICS AND THEOLOGY
If
theology concerns the doctrines of God, man, nature, and sin, and apologetics
works with these areas, there ought to be some relationship between theology and
apologetics. Church history shows
the influence of apologetics upon theology. Apologetic challenges frequently
advanced theological understanding of the Bible. When Paul was headed for his Roman
trial, many believe that Luke researched and compiled his two-volume theological
history (Luke-Acts) to aid in Paul’s defense (apologia). Later theological advances occurred
during apologetic efforts to confront heretical views of christology and
soteriology. As we seek to answer
questions and criticisms against our faith, we, too, can deepen our appreciation
of God’s Word.
Unfortunately
the Church has sometimes unwittingly adapted bad theology while trying to do
apologetics. Out of a desire to
minimize conflict, Christian apologists have sometimes tried to show that
biblical faith fits peacefully into established non-Christian concepts. Well-known Church fathers such as
Augustine and Aquinas, for example, along with their great positive
contributions to Christian thought also distorted parts of biblical theology
with concepts of Greek philosophy.
In recent times the apologetic urge to fit the Bible into evolutionary
schemes of natural history has seriously compromised literal interpretation and
inerrancy of Scripture. We have to
be very careful, therefore, how we answer those who challenge
us.
Guarding
Theology During Apologetic Activity. Criticism of the Christian faith nearly
always involves some sort of question.
A question often contains a subtle viewpoint that can mislead us when we
try to answer it. The Bible warns
us that to answer a question before one really understands it, is “folly and
shame” ( Prov. 18:13). We all can remember trying to answer a
test question in school that we didn’t understand and missing it by a mile. That’s why when we do biblical
apologetics we must first understand the question. We may even have to clarify and reword
it before we can give a clear biblical answer.
A
critical question comes with its own interpretation of history, of what is
possible and not possible, and of what is right and what is wrong. It brings its own agenda to the table
about the basic building blocks of reality. If we try to answer it without
perceiving this unbiblical baggage, we may unconsciously adopt its alien
viewpoint. Paul warned the Church
about being deceived by pagan notions of the fundamental categories of reality (
Col. 2:8). These basic categories or stoichea in ancient times could be earth,
fire, water, air, or other created things that paganism falsely interpreted as
cosmic sources and sustainers. Over
against this pagan viewpoint Paul directs us to build upon the truths revealed
in Christ. Christ, says Paul,
created the entire cosmos, sustains every so-called natural process, and fully
reveals God’s Person ( Col. 1:15; Col. 1:16; Col. 1:17). Verbal revelation, not human
speculation, is the key to interpreting history, what is and is not possible,
and what is right or wrong. In Him
“are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” ( Col.
2:3).
Thus
at Lystra Paul rejected adoration of the people because of the pagan notions of
deity embedded in their interpretation of what had happened. It would have been folly and shame for
him to have preached Christ without first clarifying Who God is. He immediately challenged their entire
interpretation of his ministry. He
replaced their perverted notions of deity with the biblical Creator-creature
distinction. Only after that
correction would Paul respond to their thankfulness by directing it toward the
God of creation ( Acts 14:8 -18). Similarly, in Athens Paul went to great
lengths to clarify the nature of God before introducing the gospel itself ( Acts 17:22 -31).
In the
early centuries after Paul, when the Church responded to early heresies about
our Lord, it had to reject the basic underlying ideas of deity that these
heresies were grounded upon, not just the individual heresies themselves. Various versions of Monarchianism, for
example, started with the false idea of solitary monotheism so they were unable
to conceive of plurality in the Godhead.
They kept insisting that Jesus couldn’t be God and distinct from the
Father at the same time. (This
mistaken notion survives to this day in certain Christian cults, Unitarianism,
post-biblical Judaism, Islam, and liberal theologies.) Thankfully, after exposing the
underlying false notions of deity, the Church came to understand biblical
revelation deeply enough to state the doctrines of the Trinity and of the
Incarnation in a clear way.
The
wisdom of not “buying the question” can be illustrated by everyday
conversation. Suppose a wife says
to her husband, “if you really loved me, you wouldn’t want to go hunting.” The overt issue appears to be the
priorities of husband—to stay home to show love for his wife or go hunting. However, there is a covert meaning
hidden inside the verb “want”: real love is so dominating that it erases all
other desires and interests in life (you wouldn’t even want to go hunting). Unless this underlying notion is
surfaced and dealt with, the argument over hunting today will re-emerge tomorrow
in an argument over something else.
Similarly, the apologetic response must be careful to unearth underlying
deceptions or stoichea lest the
questions return again and again. A
hasty and shallow response leaves unbelievers unaware of just how deeply they
must change their minds (repent) about what is
true.
Requiring
an Apologetic Strategy. To do apologetics carefully without
harming theological doctrine requires a strategy. Strategy is not primarily concerned with
specific tactical issues such as debates over the resurrection, inspiration of
the Bible, the Genesis creation story, or one’s lifestyle. Strategy is concerned with how to appeal
to the non-Christian in such a way that biblical doctrine is not compromised in
the process, regardless of the issue at hand. It focuses on how to understand
biblically the true nature of unbelief.
Christians
commonly use several different strategies in apologetic encounters. For purposes of discussion we can
classify present day apologetic strategies by distinguishing the “common ground”
that their advocates think exists between Christianity and unbelief. To have genuine communication with
critics and accusers concerning their questions, there must be some common
ground that offers a point of contact.
What is the common ground?
How should we use it to build our case?
THREE
APOLOGETIC STRATEGIES
Three
major ideas exist about what common ground exists between the Christian and the
non-Christian. Upon each of these
three ideas, modern evangelicals have fashioned distinct apologetic
strategies. Although the following
paragraphs treat each one in its pure theoretical form for clarity, in actual
practice these strategies often become mixed
together.
Neutral
Common Ground of Experience. One idea of common ground holds that all
men share historical experience.
All men experience good and evil.
They all share in historical events. Not only do they have the facts in
common, but this empirically-centered approach also holds that all men can
reason correctly about these data with complete religious neutrality. Truthful interpretation of the facts in
arithmetic, cooking, music, and science surely does not appear to require belief
in the Bible. We can, it would
seem, reason to the truths of Christianity from this neutral zone of shared
facts. We can sit down with the
unbeliever, suspend our faith, and “impartially” seek together how to interpret
the common facts of our experience.
In a culture impressed by the scientific method, this data-centered
approach carries much credibility.
Apologetics in this view tries to
operate prior to theology and thus maintain religious neutrality.[1]
For
the sake of discussion the believer agrees with the unbeliever that facts are
objective and determine what is true.
Isolated biblical facts, therefore, lead inevitably to the conclusion
that the gospel story is true. The
resurrection, for example, is a fact open to historical investigation. Impartial study of the biblical
documents and the claims of the early church regarding resurrection make the
case for Christianity evidentially compelling. Ancient Near Eastern archeological facts
similarly support the Old Testament.
Successful apologetics will utilize the alleged neutral common ground of
facts so it behooves us to gather reference material on creation, archeology,
and ancient history.[2]
Empirically-centered
apologetic strategy rightfully reminds us that biblical revelation is historical
revelation. God actually created
the universe with a history external to Himself; He didn’t just dream about
it. His revelation to beings made
in His image was not abstract theory divorced from everyday experience. Each created object, process, and
sequence of happenings testify to the Creator (Job 38-39; Psa. 19:1; Rom. 1:20). His redemptive actions from the global
flood of Noah’s day to the Exodus to the miracles of Elijah lead to genuine
knowledge of the Lord ( Exodus 7:5; 1 Kings 18:37; Isa. 54:9). He became man and entered the realm of
historical experience Himself! The
facts constitute reference points for determining truth. Factual errors and mistaken historical
witness were not tolerated by biblical authors ( Deut. 4:3; Deut. 4:11; Deut. 4:12; Deut. 18:20; Deut. 18:21; Deut. 18:22; Luke 1:1 -4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 2 Pet. 1:17). In spite of the modern misconception
that ancients were indifferent to historical accuracy, biblical authors
considered fabricated history to be a violation of the ninth commandment ( 1 Cor. 15:14; 1 Cor. 15:15; 1 Cor. 15:32). Prophetic claims that turned out to be
historically false could result in capital punishment ( Deut. 18:20; Deut. 18:21; Deut. 18:22). Jesus went so far as to say if His
historical witness were flawed then no one should believe His witness concerning
heavenly things ( John 3:12). When we speak of Christianity,
therefore, we are speaking of something as real as any other fact or experience
of our lives. The biblical record
is historically correct.
However,
we have to be careful how we think about the alleged neutral common ground of
historical experience between believer and unbeliever. Since every experienced fact is part of
a greater whole--the grand context of life itself--when men interpret a fact,
they necessarily employ universal categories of reality. They speak of facts with concepts of
natural law, chance, matter, spirit, etc.
(None of us can say anything about anything without saying something
about everything!) Universal
categories contain religious and theological beliefs. These constitute the stoicheia of Paul’s warning in Colossians 2:8. Believers and unbelievers do not share
the same stoicheia. Neutrality
disappears.
Sin
affects ideas. We have to go no
further than our everyday confrontation with lusts to see the principle in
action. All temptations invite us
to alter our theology. The fall of
man profoundly illustrates the noetic affects of sin on interpretation of
facts. Immediately after the fall
Adam and his wife reinterpreted the facts of God’s omnipresence and omniscience
in thinking they could hide from Him.
Their new worldview reinterpreted the fact of their sin so as to deny
personal responsibility ( Gen. 3:9 -13). Sin alters worldviews. Paul tells us that our unregenerate
minds have become vain and darkened ( Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). We cannot, therefore, naively accept the
unbelievers’ notions of the sensing, meaning, and interpretation of
facts.
Suppose
a critic of the faith holds to an empiricist view of facts. Empiricism views facts as isolated and
meaningless things distributed throughout a universe of chance (“brute
facts”). All we know are the
sensations we experience: sight,
sound, taste, smell, and touch. Any
meaning is given from inside our heads.
Even if we were to tie together this stream of sensations into some sort
of generalization, it would be contingent upon the next so-called fact. Is this the kind of neutrality
we—who know the Creator of man’s mind and the things it senses—want to share in
common with an unbeliever?
As
apologists facing such an unbeliever, we would be left by this
empirically-centered strategy standing not on neutral ground but upon
unbelieving ground. We not only
would inherit all the problems of empiricism, but we also would abandon any hope
of challenging the unbeliever to repent of his overall unbelief. Suppose he responded to the resurrection
claim by saying, “OK, you’ve convinced me that Christ’s tomb became empty and an
utterly strange thing happened. But
you know in this world of chance, strange things do happen. It doesn’t prove that your gospel is the
truth.” His unbelief would have
absorbed the resurrection fact inside of itself like a giant amoeba. He would have strategically enveloped
us. We would have won the battle
over the isolated fact of the resurrection, but we would have lost the war over
repentance from unbelief.
The
Neutral Common Ground of Reason. The second idea of common ground is that
all men share rationality. The law
of contradiction—that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time
and in the same way—underlies all thinking. No one can think or communicate without
it. Not only do all men have
rationality in common, but this rationally-centered approach also holds that
they apparently use it without any specific religious commitment. It appears to be a theory-neutral tool
for Christian and non-Christian alike.
With it, we seem to be able to sit down with an unbeliever in complete
neutrality and seek to create a logically consistent view of life. Like the empirically-centered apologetic
strategy, this strategy tries to place the
apologetic enterprise prior to theology.[3]
In
this approach the believer agrees with the unbeliever that by following the
model of mathematical deductive logic they can determine truth with
certainty. Reason can prove what is
true. One can make the case for
God’s existence through deduction from grand concepts such as causality and
design (e.g., God is the Uncaused Cause).
Faithful attention to logical rigor will inevitably eliminate all false
worldviews and verify the biblical worldview or at least lead one to the door of
faith. Successful apologetics will
utilize the alleged neutral common ground of reason so we must strive to refine
ever more sharply our concepts of causality and design. We must focus not upon sensory evidence
and historical facts but upon deductive logic as the key to all
knowledge.
Rationally-centered
apologetic strategy correctly disciplines our argumentation. God is not a God of confusion ( 1 Cor. 14:33). Logical consistency in the Bible
identified false prophets for execution in ancient Israel ( Deut. 13:1 -5). Logic emanates from God’s very nature (
2 Tim. 2:13). Jesus’ replies to His critics always
showed valid logic. Paul’s
arguments are tightly reasoned.
This approach correctly notes that true knowledge must involve universal
categories, not merely contingent sets of experiences. Historical facts cannot be understood
without resorting to immaterial rational ideas ( Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:3). Since in logical deduction a term cannot
appear in the conclusion unless it already occurs in the premise, we must be
very careful about how we start our response to critical questions lest we show
our shame and our folly.
Nevertheless,
before approving the law of contradiction and deductive logic as the apologetic keys, we ought to be
suspicious about differences in the way unbelievers and believers think. In discussing the Trinity do Jehovah’s
Witnesses logically deduce truths about God’s nature from the concepts of
“oneness” and “threeness” in the same way that orthodox theologians do? Do modern pagans logically resolve the
tension between the “fate” of horoscopes and their personal responses as we
would do in resolving divine sovereignty and human responsibility? How do biblical critics apply the law of
contradiction to the tension between what they view as Abraham’s attempted
murder of Isaac and the moral demand not to murder? Is their use of the law of contradiction
in this case the same as our use?
If unbelievers utilize logic differently than believers, can we really
say that reason is theologically neutral?[4]
The
law of contradiction, standing by itself, is an empty calculating machine. Everyone must appeal to more than just
the solitary law of contradiction.
To use it in any discussion we need to load it with the two valid
statements that are being compared.
We need to spell out what is meant by “true” and “false.” With each noun we necessarily import
concepts with underlying categories.
With each preposition we stipulate some sort of contextual
relationship. Again we must return
to Paul’s warning about stoichea
in Colossians 2:8. Our so-called neutral deductive logic
turns out to be as vulnerable to theological effects as the empirically-centered
approach.
Deductive
logic is much more complicated than it appears. Starting axioms by definition
cannot be proved, only chosen after the manner of fideism. One must begin with whatever—Koran,
Descartes, or Bible—in a purely unjustified, arbitrary fashion. Self-consistent chains of
logically-derived propositions there from are not necessarily true in the normal
sense of the term.[5] Deductive logic also possesses
severe theoretical limitations in its capability to form a complete system.[6] No one, including the most logical of
mathematicians, learns everything he knows from proofs. To analyze a worldview deductively takes
omniscience. God, therefore,
doesn’t reveal Himself and His will to finite man by means of a formal deductive
system.
As
apologists, we are left by this rationally-centered strategy without the
straight-forward neutral objectivity we had hoped for. We inherit all the weaknesses of
rationalism: the arbitrariness of
axiom selection, the incompleteness of logical rigor, the vulnerability to
sneaked-in unbelieving concepts, and the problem of how ideas are related to the
external world of historical experience.
Brilliant insanity can produce totally coherent worldviews. Additionally,
while focusing upon the intellectual issue of logical consistency, we disregard
the ethical issue of repentance from unbelief. As our Creator, God rightfully can
specify how we ought to think.
There are wrong and right intellectual behaviors. The scholar, no less than the thief and
prostitute, sins in his own way. By
exalting logical consistency above the Word of God, this approach leaves the
non-Christian with the idea of the sufficiency of the law of contradiction that
can be used prior to any theological commitment. If he is won over, he will live under
the delusion that Christianity is merely the truest position so far shown by his
skillful use of logic. If he isn’t
won over, he will merely assume that further study will expose an unanswerable
contradiction in the Christian faith.
In either case, rationalism has enveloped the authority of
Scripture.
The
Non-Neutral Common Ground of God’s Revelation. In one form or another the first two
apologetic strategies have characterized most of Church history since the second
century. Broadly speaking, they are
the “classic” or “traditional” apologetic approaches.[7] During the last century or two, however,
they have become less effective.
Since the so-called “Copernican revolution” of the German philosopher,
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), non-Christian systematic thought has been more and
more openly grounded in man.
Copernicus had revolutionized mankind’s concept of the universe by
substituting a heliocentric point of reference for the old geocentric one. Kant revolutionized philosophy by
substituting a new starting point (man’s mind), for the old starting point (the
external world). According to Kant
all apparent order and logic are produced by man’s mind. To account for the unity of experience,
there must be a transcendental ego.
The world itself outside of this transcendental ego really has no order
or logic. Man can know nothing of the world or God or anything
else “out there” beyond his own mind. Christian claims, therefore, are wholly
encapsulated within man’s mental experiences and cannot contain truth of the
world outside man’s head. Enemies
of the Christian faith have employed this subjective relativism in one form or
another to envelop and neutralize the gospel ever since Kant.
A
third apologetic strategy has developed over the last century within Dutch
Calvinist circles culminating in the life and work of Cornelius Van Til and his
disciples, most notably Greg L. Bahnsen, R. J. Rushdoony, Vern S. Poythress, and
John M. Frame.[8] Van Til countered Kant’s revolutionary
method of argumentation with an equally revolutionary method based upon
Scripture. Instead of making man’s
mind the source of order and logic, Van Til made God’s mind the source of the
order and logic. Kant had said that
unless man’s mind is the source of order and logic, there can be no knowledge
whatsoever. Van Til said that there
can be no knowledge whatsoever unless God’s mind is the source of order and
logic. Whereas Kant had made a
transcendental argument for the existence of a knowledge-supplying ego, Van Til
made a transcendental argument for the existence of the knowledge-supplying
Triune God of the Bible.[9] Apart from the Trinity there is no
source for uniformity in nature, for ethical authority, or for rules of logic
and classification. Unlike previous
empirically-centered and rationally-centered methodologies, this new method
subjected the interpretation of facts and exercise of logic to biblical
authority explicitly at the starting point. It requires theology to precede apologetics and inform
it at every point. Only
by so doing, it argues, will theology be protected from compromise when
Christians respond to critics’ questions.
This
third strategy centers upon the totality of biblical revelation and contrasts it
with the totality of unbelief.
Belief and unbelief appear as two opposing total systems. This strategy surrounds biblical
miracles such as the resurrection with the whole biblical story from creation to
consummation. It refuses to extract
historical miracles out of their biblical context to be neutrally analyzed as
isolated evidential pieces. Nor
does this strategy attempt to present biblical faith as a hypothesis subject to
a neutral, rational verification or as an axiom arbitrarily chosen. This emphasis upon systematized belief
and unbelief leads to a special meaning of terms like “presupposition” and
“reference point.” These terms
refer to the most basic convictions advocates of each system have regarding
existence, how knowledge should be acquired, and what is right and wrong. Moreover, these basic convictions or
presuppositions are seen as a coordinated group that forms a network which
defines a person’s worldview. Thus
this strategy is often called a presuppositional
strategy.
Because
the presuppositional strategy emphasizes people’s most basic convictions, it
confronts head-on the problem of every finite intellect. Non-omniscient minds must necessarily
confine all reasoning within a circle.
A finite mind cannot engage in an infinite chain of reasoning. All arguments, therefore, ultimately are
circular because the person’s presuppositional network of basic beliefs controls
the very notions of experience and logic required by his argumentation. The problem with other apologetic
strategies, in this view, is that by failing to acknowledge ultimate
circularity, they present the illusion of neutrality.
An illustration will help show the difference between presuppositional and classical apologetics. Imagine that someone wants to remodel and redecorate his house. He seeks the best remodeler and interior designer he can find. Finally, the day comes for the contractor to arrive and begin work. But as he arrives, alas! Instead of showing up with carpenter tools, paint, and wallpaper, he drives up in a powerful bulldozer! He’s going to start by demolishing the entire house. Rather than remodel and redecorate it, he is going to bulldoze the old one and build a new one.