Have you spent much time reviewing the apologetics, or what passes for apologetics, on the internet?
There are a few, a very few, sources that are good, but no where near the lion’s share.
2 Likes
I didn’t know apologetics only occurred on the internet. I thought it happened every Sunday in thousands of churches around the world along with probably millions of conversations IRL.
Richard
1 Like
Hi there.
This is an issue that interests me greatly. Please allow me to share a few thoughts, and my apologies for not taking time to read all of the 41 ensuing comments.
Generally, I am in total agreement with your impressions, but with a few qualifications.
First, according to the late Dr. R. C. Sproul, the primary purpose of apologetics is not, and never was, to browbeat atheists into submission. Writing not long before he died, Sproul wrote, “The third, and what I believe is the most valuable, aim of apologetics is to encourage the saints, to shore up the church—just as the first concern that Moses had was to be able to demonstrate that God had called him to go to the Israelites and lead them out of Egypt. Moses was an apologist to his own people.”
Since the decline of the church is mostly from attrition, I believe apologetics is critically important, but is and should be primarily for the discipling of the flock, not evangelism. People leave for many reasons, but often because they fell for other belief systems.
Second, the notion of apologetics for evangelism assumes that people are basically rational and form their beliefs on the basis of facts, logic, and experience. This simply isn’t the case. Emotions and social influences are much more powerful determinants. Hence, your observation that appearances matter enormously is right on target. People don’t care whether Christianity is true if they think that it is bad.
Third, they do work, for some people. There are simply too many first-hand experiences to dismiss, including my own. I was persuaded into theism because of the design argument. But the work of the Holy Spirit remains crucial. Faith is a gift of God.
5 Likes
This thread reflects a variety of concepts of apologetics. It might be helpful to the discussion as well as to people who only really know of the obnoxiois brand, if people who know about and value apologetics described their concept in some detail.
Besides a “defense of the faith” what do you mean by “Apologetics”? What are the points? Philosophy? Purpose? Content? Method?
Like some others in this forum, I am familiar with obnoxious (not the most obnoxious, i am sure), proud, and pushy. I am also familiar with thoughtful, intelligent, kind but logically inadequate forms.
What is there out there, that doesn’t fit these categories?
2 Likes
Apologetics is a defence or justification of a theory or doctrine. That happens when you try to show why your variety of doctrine or interpretation is correct, in other words between persons that share a common basis but disagree in some details. For example, the YEC vs. OEC vs. EC debate is fundamentally apologetics.
2 Likes
Do your categories imply that the latter (less offensive) sort are always bundled with logical deficiencies? Are there no categories that are logically sound and yet manage to avoid being offensive?
Harking back to our discussions around Penner’s book, I wonder if apologetics couldn’t also be categorized as either aggressive (hard), or more testimonial (soft). Penner may have had different phrases or words that I’m not recalling at the moment. But the former would usually be associated with trying to paint someone into a corner, to trap them or make them feel stupid or evil if in the end you’ve succeeded in argumentation with “logic traps”, and they still refuse to convert [recall Penner’s story about Steve]. And the latter category being satisfied to be more defensive - finding it sufficient to show that following Christ is at least a plausible option and that one isn’t stupid for choosing it. I can share my testimony of what I’m finding compelling in my own life experiences without feeling a need that you too must now validate everything that I’ve come to embrace. Would all this latter category succeed in being non-offensive while simultaneously avoiding logical infractions?
And perhaps we could even put in a third category (again - for lack of my memory of terms Penner probably used) - let me label this one: “trans-logical” or perhaps ‘a-logical’. Meaning, it takes less interest in logic entirely (other than to not just blatantly transgress it perhaps). This might be “relational apologetics”. It could be compared more to (if you’re married) how did you woo your spouse back when you were courting. While you may have still been a logical person while you were doing it, chances are logic was not your primary mode of thought in that whole process. When you would do anything for somebody else as a person, it’s more along the lines of “the heart hath its reasons that reason knows not of.” Moreover, you probably aren’t in any great need to “prove anything” to the world. You already know for yourself that the target of your amorous longings is simply just the most beautiful person in the entire world, and you probably have exactly zero interest in how much your ignorant friends may agree or disagree with you about that. Actually - perhaps you do enjoy their agreement, but (the logical you) doesn’t expect that of everybody sees your hoped-for lover the same way you do since you know (or at least hope) that this relationship is particular to you in ways that are unavailable to everyone else. Might that also be an apt metaphor for each of us relating to Christ too? There are good reasons why covenant marriage and books like “Song of Songs” are in the bible and so often used for insight into how a highly covenantal God relates to us.
3 Likes
An interesting take on apologetics:
3 Likes
The words on this forum are not apologetics, they are basically contentious arguments and dogma.
Apologetics is a monologue not a dialogue or discussion. A sermon is apologetics, which is why I find some of the descriptions here offensive. Apologetics should never be even the slightest bit obnoxious or offensive.
Forgive me here, but I consider my preaching to be a gift of the Spirit and to suggest that it might be offensive or a waste of time hurts.
Richard
An interesting article. Thanks for posting it. It’s a good example of the pared down neuroscientific principle of “what you put in your brain matters.”
2 Likes
Not everything on this forum is apologetics. But how does contentious arguments and dogma differ from apologetics if these are used to defend or justify doctrines or interpretations?
Apologetics does not have to be a monologue. Good apologetics is interactive, except blogs, podcasts, traditional sermons and other ways of communication where the media or format makes interactive communication difficult. I assume that interactive communication was the primary mode of oral teaching and apologetics during the first century. Only writings remain, which may give a distorted view of apologetics during the first centuries.
1 Like
Yeah most people aren’t reasoned in or out of religion through apologetics, It is normally some kind of emotional or highly spiritual experience. However, a great many people have, and it is important to still see that theism can be very rational, which is another aspect of apologetics.
1 Like
The internet definitely does not have many places that can house real, honest debates.
2 Likes
I think it is also very well put by William Lane Craig that apologetics can be used to raise the “intellectual price-tag” of opposing world views.
1 Like
Interesting!
I think raising the intellectual price-tag of religion and Christianity is good too. Religion is dangerous and abuse abounds. Making people think more and be more aware is good.
2 Likes
Exactly. However, it is important that we don’t raise the intellectual price-tag to a point where it is unaffordable by everyone. Of course it is good to be aware of the bad things religion has done and how it can be abused, but also it should be made aware the lives and cultures it has changed for the better and all the good it can do. To show that it is what can fulfill our lives as well, and most importantly, to show the truth.
1 Like
Debate is just a problematic form to begin with. Make the best case possible for theatrical effect regardless whether you find the case convincing: how can that possibly be productive? What I notice here when a few individuals get into debate mode is that they reveal very little about their own position or what motivates it and that sets a bad example for what will follow. Why should anyone answer the mangled questions of soap box apologetic when the person is not the least bit disclosive about themselves? Of course what they do they are likely to be on a script portraying a character they think will help their side. Open discussion is the only acceptable way to discuss values and religious positions.
3 Likes
That may be a fine ideal in terms of witness but not necessarily in terms of debate. In true debate you take a position and argue it to the nth degree. it is not unheard of for that position to be a “devils advocate” which may go beyond our own personal beliefs but makes valid points However, as I said earlier true discussion allows for a change of view which I rarely see on this forum. What I see more often is a dogged pursuant of a specific view argued despite any opposition rather than taking it into account. Also people have key phrases that trigger a knee jerk response regardless of the actual topic in hand.
Richard
1 Like
- For those of us who didn’t know:
- Me:
- Who coined the term “intellectual price tag” and what does it mean?
- ChatGPT:
- “The term “intellectual price tag” was coined by Malcolm X. It refers to the social, political, and economic costs that individuals or groups may face due to their pursuit of intellectual independence, critical thinking, and advocating for social justice. Malcolm X used this term to highlight how individuals who challenge the status quo or speak out against injustices often face backlash, marginalization, or even danger as a consequence. It underscores the sacrifices and risks involved in standing up for one’s beliefs and seeking intellectual freedom in contexts where such dissent is not tolerated or is actively suppressed.”
3 Likes
Sorry, I’m not willing to debate the value of debate. For me it is uninteresting.
2 Likes
I can recall a few people who benefitted in that way; they didn’t become Christians but a couple returned to listen more.
Though much more often I saw Christians who had doubts become a bit more confident due to apologetics – indeed from the very stuff they were proclaiming.
Maybe because He won’t coerce people?
Which is why the Gospel precedes good works, not follows!
Interesting point – on that level, apologetics may only be useful when the choice besides Jesus is starkly worse (I’m thinking here of a couple of apologists who confront Muslims, who know the Quran better than many imams, who shows the stark difference between the cold, cruel aloofness of Allah and the sacrificing love of Christ – they get a thin but steady trickle of Muslims turning to Christ).
A Lutheran pastor/priest who was briefly a mentor commented on this sort of focus in a congregation as “filling up the nursery” – collecting more and more perpetual spiritual infants.
Which is not the same as “forcing belief on other people”.
2 Likes