EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
I'm not alone in my belief. Pastor and author Timothy Keller, who ministers in New York and has written one of the better apologetics books of our time, The Reason for God, says one of the big issues facing the church today is the need for a renewal of apologetics. Keller says apologetics is important for two reasons. First, Christians in the West will soon be facing missionaries from around the world. While loving communities are important, he says that we also need to be prepared to converse thoughtfully with people of differing worldviews. Second, there is a vacuum in western secular thought. The enlightenment faith in science and progress has ended, and according to Keller, postmodernism is seen as a dead end, too. This is why Keller concludes: “There is a real opening, apologetically, in reaching out to thoughtful non-Christians, especially the younger, socially conscious ones.” And yet Keller points out something that I have been thinking about for some time, namely that there is a lot of resistance right now among younger evangelical leaders toward apologetics. This is why I wrote Apologetics for a New Generation, to offer ideas about how apologetics can be effectively done in our current culture. Let’s continue apologizing (and I don’t mean saying sorry!) for the faith, but do it in a way that resonates with our present culture. So, even though a powerful case can be made for the importance of apologetics, why do so many people continue to resist and criticize it? I haven’t seen any solid biblical reasons for rejecting apologetics. After all, Jesus was an apologist (John 5:31-47), Paul clearly used apologetics (Acts 17), Peter encouraged people to be able to defend their views (1 Peter 3:15) and early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius regularly used apologetics. Concern must lie elsewhere. In fact, my experience tells me that the problem is not with apologetics per se, but with apologists—the people who practice apologetics. Do you agree? I offer some humble thoughts from my research and experience. If you disagree, or have further thoughts, I would love to know. Apologists often overstate their case. There is a huge temptation to overstate the evidence for the Bible, intelligent design, the resurrection of Jesus or any other apologetic issue. I have succumbed to this myself. In our eagerness to convince non-believers, or our desire to strengthen fellow Christians, we can all fall prey to the temptation to state things more certainly than they may be. In our information age, people have access to counterarguments and perspectives at the tip of their fingers. We also live in a skeptical age where people who say things with dogmatism are often considered suspect. This does not mean the evidence for Christianity is not compelling. It is. But there are smart, thoughtful people that disagree. And we must acknowledge this, or we’ll set up people—especially young people—for failure. Apologists often do not speak with gentleness, love and respect. Recently I had a public debate with Dr. James Corbett on the question of God and morality (here). As part of my preparation, I listened to many debates from Christians. Although I won’t mention any names, there were a handful of Christian debaters that honestly made me cringe at how they treated their opponents. One debater (the head of a well known apologetics ministry that will remain anonymous) demeaned and personally attacked his opponent. I even showed the video to my wife and she was appalled at his antics and behavior. But it’s not just public figures that act this way. We probably all have an example of some overly eager apologist who was unnecessarily argumentative rather than loving. If this is you, PLEASE STOP because you are giving Christianity and apologetics an unnecessarily bad name. I often tell my students that if they can’t speak the truth in love, then don’t even bother to speak truth. Apologists are often not emotionally healthy. Mark Matlock wrote a compelling essay about apologetics and emotional development for my book Apologetics for a New Generation. In it, he argued that apologetics often attracts people who have been emotionally hurt, and in turn, who use apologetics to hurt other people. He’s absolutely right. As Rick Warren has said, “Hurt people, hurt people.” There is power in knowledge. And many people seek power by gaining more information so they can control and even humiliate other people. If you are an apologist, I encourage you to ask yourself some deep questions: Why (honestly) are you an apologist? Is your heart genuinely broken for non-Christians? Do you pray for humility and guidance in your research and conversations with both Christians and non-Christians? I hope so. Apologetics is often done in a cold, mechanical and rationalistic manner. Many of us think of apologetics as the impersonal deliverance of facts meant to convince people rationally that Christianity is true—as if people are simply robots that conform to whatever is most reasonable! Apologetics is often void of emotion, passion, and good old-fashioned storytelling. Apologetics is often seen as a narrow discipline for lawyers and doctors. But this is not apologetics. It does (or should) engage the mind but through the heart, passions, and emotions. C.S. Lewis beautifully modeled this approach with his use of fiction. Insofar as apologetics is viewed as simply rationalistic, it will fail to captivate people. The issue is not really apologists versus non-apologists. C.S. Lewis was right that we are all apologists. The question is just how effective of an apologist we are. So, besides these four points, what other reasons are there for why apologetics has a bad name in some circles of Christianity? I’d love to know your thoughts. And more importantly, what can we do about it?
|
Comments
Good post, I think all four of your points are good ones. They reminded me of the last section of William Lane Craig's book "Reasonable Faith," entitled, "The Ultimate Apologetic."
I think you are right in saying that the negative image problem is caused by flaws in apologists rather than by flaws in the endeavour of apologetics. So I would like to make 2 suggestions that might help apologists cultivate more "1 Peter 3:15" character:
1. The importance of making an effort to grow in all aspects of faith, not only the intellectual. Devotional life, social activism, etc. -- these should grow in step with the intellectual component (and of course the different aspects overlap and inform and strengthen one another).
2. The importance of studying the life of a particular Christian apologist or philosopher. This has been helpful in teaching me about how live -- not just think -- apologetically. For me personally, the life of Blaise Pascal has been particularly instructive.
In the end, as human apologists we are fallen and finite and bound to mess up sometimes. But I find encouragement in the old medieval saying: "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick."
Great thoughts, Jordan. I like your idea about studying the life of an apologist. This puts a real "human" face on apologetics behind the arguments. It also reveals that apologists, like the rest of us, are imperfect people striving for truth and significance.
Sean,
I really appreciate your reflections here. Let me make three related comments.
(1) I suspect that the first idea on your list ("Apologists often overstate their case") is also of first importance in understanding the poor reputation of Christian apologetics. Nothing draws criticism like hubris.
(2) These overstatements are often made before audiences that have neither the resources nor the motivation to make an accurate and informed evaluation. In this way, Christian apologetics has come to resemble the Fox News of science and philosophy. Christian apologists' most visible effect is in raising a generation of true believers whose ignorance and lack of perspective are matched only by their self-assurance and stockpiles of half-baked arguments. When these disciples show up in college classroom, some degree of balanced intellecual modesty is often regained; all too frequently, however, one finds these disciples among one's middle-aged relatives, pastors and politicians--or among those who will avoid a more challenging education largely because they have come to despise the views of non-Christians and to deeply distrust non-Christian universities (attitudes for which Christian apologists deserve some responsibility).
(3) Christian apologists tend to aggravate an already present problem, since widespread beliefs among fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to predispose folks to predictable biases. Consider the following line of reasoning.
(a) A person will go to hell for rejecting Christian beliefs.
(b) A person won’t go to hell for subscribing to a set of beliefs, so long as such is done reasonably. (It would seem unjust to make a person go to hell on the basis of his/her beliefs when these are reasonably adopted and maintained.)
(c) Therefore, those who reject Christian beliefs are not being reasonable. (Maybe they reject the light because of their love of darkness, etc.)
For similar reasons, fundamentalists/Evangelical beliefs may already predispose many of them to fear and distrust challenging ideas and systems of thought (less they endanger their own souls with hell).
The upshot is that it is all the more urgent for Christian apologists to teach in such a way as to address and circumvent such biases. Their own failures to do this, however, are also somewhat predictable. One might of course defend the bias, but then one just has to live the reputation of being the Fox news of science and philosophy.
CT,
In 3) you make a distinction between "Fundamentalists and Evangelicals". I believe that your use of "Evangelicals" causes great confusion in the Christian community, as all Christians are supposed to be Evangelical. The way you use the word makes it become a confused term. How does one define the group that you refer to, as everyone looks differently at the term? I sincerely wish that Christians would not use it so; it exacerbates the confusion of apologetics. Thank you.
Here's an interesting resource on the term "evangelical": http://www.religioustolerance.org/evan_defn3.htm
I'm not really attached to my particular usage, but it hardly seems fair to blame me for the confusion! My usage is modestly useful for picking out those who self-identify as "Evangelicals", but who might nonetheless shy away from the term "fundamentalist." But all this would be better discussed under a different post.
Hi - Great article, and very timely I think.
I did see 1 Peter 3:15 mentioned here, and in my journey through apologetics which began about 5 years ago, the second, least quoted part of this verse has become perhaps the most important for me to remember:
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, ....
***yet with gentleness and reverence.***
I am really surprised how many times I hear people at church including pastors quote this verse while leaving off the careful warning to use gentleness and reverence.
I do believe that if apologetics seminars began their sessions with this simple admonishment, it might help to set the tone for the rest of the instruction. Gentleness and reverence to me, can only come from one position, and that is one of humility.
Your observation about apologists being the opposite of 1 Peter 3:15 struck me. Here are a few observations:
Many folks have observed that psychologists often go to school to solve their own problems. I think apologists are often doing their work to answer their own questions. I know that I have been one to use apologetics to justify my faith - so I am guilty of this.
I also think apologists get war torn. After a series of debates, where my opposition was crude, condescending and downright vicious, I found myself wanting to pummell them. I believed that they were not adhering to the rules of honest debate, so I questioned why I had to. This devolved into a debate where I won the arguments, but lost my adherence to 1 P 3:15 where the person ended saying, "I do not believe in God." I said, "That is not my fault."
I think that apologists feel like a ton of people are counting on them to prove that the faith is true. When they are fellowshiping, they are often confronted with an onslaught of intensive questions which are expected to be answered with utmost posterity.
Well, being an apologist is a challenge and I think we should pray for those engaged in apologetics to be humble. WE should also pray that they walk into battle with the confidence that the Spirit will be there to help them answer. This is really hard to do because they study so hard and tend to think they have to answer all the questions rather than leaning on the Lord to give them an answer.
This is perfect and timely Sean. I've been reflecting on this for some time and have been thinking of a useful way to express this problem and a solution. My first obligation is that I think part of the problem is very nature of apologetics. Much of apologetics will include giving arguments and possibly having debates over the most important issues we all have strong opinions about and often with people who do not, in their worldview, have any obligation to be genial but rather have their minds set on being as rude and confrontational as possible. This has especially become poignant within more recent brands of atheism. Thus it has recently been the case that rather than keeping our bearings which are ultimately grounded in love, Christians have unfortunately responded in kind. I myself have had to step back, observe myself and repent from hard-heartedness; I call it the "Amatuer Apologists syndrome". Secondly, I've also seen many fellow Christians who have defected from certain heterodox movements or changed views in some other area (arminian to calvinist, etc) who then swing the pendulum much too far in the other direction and all they ever rant and rave about are the false ways of this and that. While there may be some truth to what they're saying, it's ALL they ever say, and because they have some personal involvement, virulent feelings get in the way and I think this is the negative side of letting your emotions affect your apologetics. We might call this folly "Axe-grinders Syndrome". Thirdly, I think a feature that is paticular to our generation is the anonymity of internet. Similar to what you said about attaching a face to the person in regards to apologists and their arguments, when Christians go into online discussion forums and chatrooms they find themselves in conversations not with human persons, but with words on a screen. Couple that with the fact the other person has probably also fallen prey to disassociative downfall, which only serves to enhance the aforementioned lack of concern for being respectful they might have and you've got an all out textual war between two people who don't see each other as people. Lastly, Christians must remember that Scripture presents apologetics as largely defensive enterprise that is a MEANS, and not just an end in itself. One should not learn apologetic arguments just so they can go and "try them out" like karate moves on some non-believer on the street or on the web in an effort to overpower them with, as some atheists have put it in reaction to apologists with such zeal, "unassailable logic". Rather apologetics is primarily to be seen as the Bible describes it in the oft quoted verse in 1 Peter, an answering for or defending of the faith. This suggest reaction, not proaction in that we go looking for oppurtunities to have arguments about Christianity where none existed before. To give an analogy, apologetics is not the AK-47 of the Christian soldier, if anything that's the Gospel, that's what we're going on the offense with. Apologetics should be seen as the well-sharpened, versatile field knife every Christian should have "ready" when NEEDED. William Lane Craig himself says that when interacting with non-believers, he'll shy away from apologetics in an effort to get the Gospel across FIRST, then after that is over he'll commence to offering the most amazing arguments the world has ever known and convert them on the spot (I'm exaggerating..a little). The most formidable apologist alive sees the Gospel as preeminate and places apologetics on a "if necessary" basis, we'd do well to take note. In closing I'll give my solution via a really corny analogy. Cast iron grates (stay with me) are great for grilling. They're naturally non-stick, very tough and heat friendly ,give killer grill marks and can outlast their owners. However if not properly maintained they're very vulnerable to rust because they're made of iron, so they have to be seasoned well and maintained constantly by being and staying oiled. So goes the heart of the apologetically minded Christian. Apologetics is great, we give answers to challenges to faith, casting down speculations to show Christianity is the only worldview that is true. However if our hearts are not tempered and massaged by love, they can be corroded by the combative nature of apologetics until we become as Paul says clanging cymbals, instead of attractive witnesses for the gospel. I think another word from Paul closes this out nicely, Col 4:5-6 "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person"
lol...it was 0140 when i wrote this, have mercy, i meant "my first observation", and sorry for the lack of paragraph formatting.
As I wrote in my article in the book Sean edited, Apologetics for a New Generation, I think we highly lack metaphorical intelligence when it comes to public discourse and the gospel. And in so doing, we've sucked a lot of humanity out of our apologetic approaches.
Many evangelicals rave about C. S. Lewis, but I think it's curious that Lewis was not grown out of evangelical cultural as we know it. We don't have the substance in our sub-culture to sustain a Lewis (or a Founding Father, for that matter). Creating a lasting culture is also an apologetic but requires our expanding out of our wooden views of being "right" into a larger motivation of love.
I'm amazed how limited many make apologetics to be, not realizing it is an interdisciplinary tool. Anytime you're convincing someone of anything, you're doing a form of apologetics, whether it be in defense of broccoli or the resurrection. Jesus was very good at it, but most don't note his many instances because he was conversational, imaginative, witty, and penetrating. As long as apologetics is thought of as argumentative, combative, analytic, it will always be relished by the minority as a sub-discipline for academics and disdained by the Common Man whom Chesterton, the great 20th century apologist, praised and protected as the demonstrators of the Christian apologetic tradition.
Great thoughts, Jordan. I like your idea about studying the life of an apologist. This puts a real "human" face on apologetics behind the arguments. It also reveals that .wood tile apologists, like the rest of us, are imperfect people striving for truth and significance.
I totally agree with your points. And for anyone wanting to reach out to this world in a loving Manner. Any of Tim Keller's Material. " A reason for God Changed my Mind on a lot things.
Great thoughts, Jordan. I like your idea about studying the life of an apologist. This puts a real "human" face on apologetics behind the arguments. It also reveals that weight loss pills apologists, like the rest of us, are imperfect people striving for truth and significance.
As someone who thrown more than one apologetics book across the room in disgust, here are a couple of thoughts for Christians who want to be taken seriously in a discussion:
1) Be honest. If you find yourself editing what you are planning to say to avoid hurting your case, that is a sign that you are more interested in debate tactics than an honest discussion.
2) Don't just assume that any given argument you find in an apologetics book is valid!! If you think to yourself, "This doesn't make sense to me", or "Yeah, but what about...", I would bet that you are on to something. Check out the counter arguments online (the Secular Web and infidels.org often go through apologetics books chapter by chapter), and weigh the arguments. A willingness to reject (or even question) a poor argument will improve your credibility greatly.
3) Remember that your faith is (probably) not founded on apologetic arguments anyway, so do not cling to them as if your eternity depended on it.
4) Accept (or at least pretend to accept!) the idea that there are thoughtful non-Christians who reject many of your arguments for the Faith in, well, "good faith".
5) Wrestle with this thought-experiment before you judge a skeptic's view as "hard-heartedness":
Pretend you are not a Christian. A trusted friend tells you that last week he saw a man miraculously remove a bloody tumor from the belly of a woman in the Philippines, using just his hand- and there was no break in her skin! The man gave your friend a hand-written list of reasonable commands (in English!), and told him that if anyone believed that he was sent from God, he would live forever.
You have a sincere, living eyewitness, and no doubt as to the authorship or meaning of the commands. Are YOU convinced?
One last thing:
6) Expose yourself to the thinking of writers outside of the very insular world of popular Christianity. If you think that there is good evidence for young earth creationism, for example, you may want to do a little outside reading. To non-Christians, you may as well say that the earth is flat as say it is 6k years old.