Apologetics and philosophy overlap in some areas, but their goals are not the same. Philosophy is the pursuit of truth by reasoned argument. Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, too many Christian apologists today are forgetting this.

When challenging an argument in philosophy, the philosopher goes straight for the jugular of the argument, not the arguer. If I—the amateur philosopher that I am—attack or critique the person, other philosophers will quickly toss up the ad hominem red flag. It’s only the argument that should be considered.

Apologetics, on the other hand, must chiefly consider the individual—not in evaluating the validity of her argument, but in determining the best approach to move her closer to faith in Christ. Apologetics nowadays is used for bolstering the faith of Christians (especially for youth entering the hostile arena of the secular university). It’s also used to break down the intellectual barriers nonbelievers have against the Christian worldview. Apologetics is done in hopes of keeping Christians believers, and making nonbelievers Christians. Its goal is evangelistic in nature—done by way of defending the faith by utilizing philosophy.

As such, the apologist must have a different approach than the philosopher. For example, suppose a nonbeliever says, “Christianity is false because Christians have perpetrated so much injustice and exploitation in history.” The philosopher in me would immediately retort: “The truth or falsity of a claim is not dependent upon the person(s) making the claim living it out in their life. Christian claims can still be true even if the claim-maker(s) does not adhere to it.” (And then I’d thrown in a few Latin words like ipso facto and sine qua non to make myself sound like a real philosopher.) The philosopher may have hit his goal of taking down such a weak argument, but if the apologists retorts in the same way he will totally miss his goal. The argument falls easily, but responding like this may not move the person one inch closer to faith.

The apologist must not only ask, “What is wrong with the argument?”—but must principally consider the person. He must ask: What is she really trying to communicate by saying this? Why does she have such a negative view of Christianity? How is her view of Christians affecting her ability to have faith in Christ? Has she been hurt by Christians who exploited her or a loved one in the past? Is this argument just a red herring—and not the real reason why she objects to Christianity? How the apologist answers these questions should determine how he responds to the nonbeliever’s challenge. He may find it useful to employ the philosopher’s argument, but to limit his response to philosophic rebuttal will fall so very short of what apologetics is all about.

I do not envy the apologist. It’s a very difficult task indeed, to combine the intellectual reasoning of the philosopher with the skill and spirit of the evangelist. But if too many apologists keep making apologetics only about philosophy the Christian community will lose valuable evangelistic means and opportunities—all the while fooling ourselves into thinking we’re actually doing apologetics.