Different approach to apologetics

Faith & Science Conversation
,
51

I used to be a part of the Christian Hip Hop world and there is a BIG emphasis on apologetics there. In fact, I have a friend who wrote a book on the subject called Street-Level Apologetics. The common name for this style of apologetics is sometimes called Backpack Apologetics (referring to a hip-hop term for rap fans - backpackers) or Urban Apologetics. I have a lot of experience in dealing with these folks and their love of “battle” debates. It really pairs well with the hip-hop ethos of one-upping each other.

Personally, I HATE IT. :smile:

I know way too many atheists to know that all of the arguments that apologetics fans think are stone-cold mic droppers are just rhetorical games or arguments based on the bible which atheists don’t believe in. There is an obsession with trying to make faith logical which, to me, completely defeats the purpose of faith and any rewards that God bestows on someone they consider faithful. It’s all delivered with so much arrogance too. It never feels friendly or inviting.

It’s also interesting that many of the friends I grew up with that were SUPER into apologetics ended up leaving the faith altogether. To me, that says something about the strict arguments that you have to buy into that leave people with a bad taste in their mouths when they realize that you can view the Christian faith in way more ways than apologetics fans would agree with.

I just can’t deal with it. I most recently went to a Christian hip-hop festival with one of these apologetics friends and sat through a lot of seminars that were just so amateurish in their arguments. I honestly couldn’t believe some of the basic stuff I heard from these experts. Stuff that atheists would laugh so hard at, but was seen as the magic ticket to win debates. I cringe so hard when I think about it.

1 Like
52

Interesting perspective and experience. I agree that bad apologetics detract from the message of the gospel, and most apologetics are bad.

2 Likes
53

As far as published material, I’m not so sure most of it is bad. The Case for Christ, while not perfect, is not a bad introduction to historical apologetics. There are definitely a bunch of bad apologists, in fact you could say all of us are sinners, which is ironically an apologetic argument in itself.

What I found, was that as imperfect as historical arguments are, at best they are as good as believing what someone else saw. It’s when you take these arguments and put them along side what God is doing in your life, that you arrive at a way of knowing the Bible perfectly describes :wink:

54

Christian apologetics is the practice of presenting reasoned arguments and evidence in defence of the Christian faith. When engaging in apologetics, it’s important to strive for a respectful and inviting approach that fosters meaningful dialogue. Here are some suggestions for making Christian apologetics less obnoxious and more inviting:

  1. Respectful attitude: Approach discussions with a genuine desire to understand the other person’s perspective. Show respect for their beliefs and opinions, even if you disagree with them. Avoid condescension, dismissive language, or personal attacks.
  2. Active listening: Take the time to actively listen to the concerns, doubts, and questions of others. Demonstrate empathy and understanding by acknowledging their viewpoints. This creates a more open and inviting atmosphere for dialogue.
  3. Humility: Recognize that you don’t have all the answers. It’s okay to say, “I don’t know” or “I’ll look into that.” Avoid coming across as arrogant or overly confident. Humility can make your approach more approachable and relatable.
  4. Seek common ground: Find areas of agreement or shared values to build upon. Highlight the values that both sides may hold, such as love, compassion, justice, or moral principles. Focusing on shared concerns can help create a foundation for productive conversation.
  5. Tailor your approach: Understand that different individuals have different needs and perspectives. Avoid using a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, tailor your responses to address the specific concerns or doubts of the person you are engaging with.
  6. Avoid overly technical or complex language: Make an effort to communicate your points in clear and accessible language. Complex jargon or theological terminology can be intimidating and may create a barrier to understanding. Use relatable examples and analogies to help convey your ideas.
  7. Respect personal boundaries: Recognize that not everyone is interested in engaging in apologetic discussions. Be sensitive to the comfort level of the person you are conversing with and avoid pushing them into uncomfortable territory. Sometimes, simply living out your faith in a genuine and compassionate way can be more impactful than engaging in debates.
  8. Build relationships: Apologetics should not be limited to isolated debates. Focus on building relationships with others, demonstrating love and care in your interactions. This can create a foundation of trust and openness that allows for more meaningful conversations about faith.

Remember, the goal of Christian apologetics is not to win arguments but to engage in respectful and meaningful dialogue. By adopting a humble, empathetic, and inviting approach, you can create an atmosphere that encourages genuine exploration and understanding.

2 Likes
55

While all those points above are good ones, Nobby, they all suffer one thing in common that drags them down: … they are apologetics! Perhaps it could ironically be observed that the only ‘apologetics’ that could be considered good now are those practices that have stopped and dropped being apologetics altogether! Which is a contradictory statement in itself - because it only just drives the ‘apologetic’ objective yet deeper, perhaps momentarily into more effective territory, when in actuality that objective probably just needs to be exorcised - driven out of our hearts - completely.

Because every last one of your points above are good things for us to do as human beings for each other just because they are good for any people to do regardless of their creed - or maybe even more importantly because of it. Christ calls us to be these ways with neighbor, friend, and enemy. And so that is the way we should be. Whether or not, or how well this “sells” anything to others should be left in God’s hands. People around me should each be an opportunity for me to practice all these things in love, not a mission objective in any sense beyond what should be my mission to help improve their lives by listening and attending to their wants and needs.

So does that mean I’m trying to be some sort of conscientious objector to Jesus’ Great Commission? I don’t think so. Because I too should always be ready to be open and honest about my own perspectives and experiences - including the work of Christ in my own life. And in a world where we try to listen to each other (regardless of motive or result from any given individual we encounter), - that is a world where my own voice also may occassionally be welcomed and also attended to by some as part of their human corpus of experience, too - though I don’t fuss about it where it isn’t.

To engage in what has in recent centuries become known as apologetics, seems to me like the practice of always digging up seeds to see if they are beginning to sprout in ways that we approve of, rather than just sowing fruits of the Spirit, watering, and leaving any growth (or whether or not any particular growth is a wheat or tare) - just leaving that all to God.

2 Likes
56

And then there’s this:

57

I think this hits the nail on the head. I worry that on our culture we feel the need to appeal to some other authority, as if our own experience is not enough. I think of the times my parents argue with each other and say things like “you always do X” :rofl:. Why is it not enough to just say “I feel like X” without claiming to make such an overarching proposition? Is it because we think our personal feelings are somehow less valid and will be taken less seriously?

Of course, our personal feelings are invalid when it comes to scientific or mathematical matters (in most cases), but that doesn’t mean they’re invalid as a whole or not important to us. If someone claimed to have a religious experience reading the Quran or meditating I have no reason to doubt the veracity of such an experience a priori any more than they have a reason to doubt my own. I think many Christians miss this point.

I’ve come to believe God does not want just (or even primarily) an intellectual relationship with us, just as much as I don’t want only an intellectual relationship with others (probably why I get along better with my dog than with most people :rofl:). If God exists (as I believe he does), it is plausible he would want a more personal or more “real” relationship than us just assenting to a positive belief about his existence. I think it was J Warner Wallace who made the distinction between “beliefthat” and “belief in” (though in his case, it was an anecdote about a bulletproof vest)

58

Thanks. But how can one define how one’s feelings are correct? One can argue that one feels great with Scientology, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and atheism.

If each is equally valid, doesn’t that really indicate that the experience us a confirmation bias of our own yearnings?

At times, I feel far away from God…at others, that He moved close…for no clear reason.

My experience is not a great one for confidence, I think.

I do believe that God judges us based on our hearts and knows, as a father that also created us, how we are frail. We are not as strong as we think we are, as Rich Mullins said.

Thanks.

1 Like
59

That’s a good point. My response would be emotions are valid in the sense that they are real to us, but they aren’t true or false like propositions. Our experience and emotions do not by themselves show something is true, but they can help guide us to truth when they are functioning properly.

Religious experiences are emotionally valid for everyone but the underlying religious propositions that people make can be compared and are not all valid. Such a comparison should take into account the experience along with logic and other types of evidential support. This is how, as Plantinga argues, we can still “cut our way through the forest” of different religious claims.

2 Likes
60

Some of the most important things in our lives are subjective in nature. Among them are art, music, love of family, and community.

I fully agree.

4 Likes
61

So, does this mean you accept the possibility validity of other religions?

Richard

62

Isn’t there is a difference between the reality of an experience as against its validity. No one is necessarily doubting the veracity of the report, like the experience of being handed a $100 bill. The experience happened, but is the bill legitimate or counterfeit, is it valid.

I do not doubt the validity of Phil Yancey’s experience (below), but I do Muhammad’s, Joseph Smith’s and Ellen White’s, to name a few. I do not necessarily doubt the veracity of any of the latter’s reports.

ETA:

…even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

 

63

What I just posted addresses that… we’ll see if Paul agrees. :slightly_smiling_face:

 

Note ETA above, and here:

…even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

64

Not sure if this is aimed at @Paulm12 or me, so with that said . . .

I respect all religious experiences equally, and it is good to see Christians who share this view. I’ve always thought that atheists and Christians share a lot of core values such as basic respect for our fellow humans.

In keeping with the theme of this thread, could a Christian be convinced to change faiths by the testimony of a Muslim? I would think that it has happened at least once.

1 Like
65

Knowing you general position that makes sense.

If religion is personal, and we are to accept that there can be different flavours of Christianity (denominations) then it is not a big step to encompass other faith structures for the single God. Admittedly, this is not encouraged by Scripture but there are indications that God looks at the heart not the actions or beliefs.
I guess it is not good practice to suggest that there might be valid alternatives to the “product” you are promoting. Personally I prefer the results to the methodology. I have met many an atheist who displays more Christian attitudes than some vehement professing Christians.

Richard

66

I would say that a well-grounded one could not, especially if they have had experience of their loving Father’s providential interventions. To die for, literally.

67

You under estimate the human factor. There are so called Christian communities that I would shun with the proverbial barge Pole. In these cases Islam may seem a valid alternative.

Richard

68

That sounds racist. :grin: Or ethnicist, anyway.

You underestimate the Holy Spirit factor.

69

As a general rule, everyone should consider that other people are just as convinced of their own beliefs as we are of our own. I think this would greatly improve apologetics as well as conversations between people of different faiths and no faith.

70

It’s a tricky question. Some interpret it as a believer losing their salvation and others see it as that person not being born again to begin with.

This is an interesting passage from Matthew that speaks to the dilemma:

For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.