I would fully agree that it normally comes down to a personal experience that often defies rationality in the strictest sense. I have also found that most apologetics depends on faith based assumptions that a non-believer wouldn’t share. This is why I think there is often a disconnect between believers and non-believers when it comes to apologetics. For example, an apologetic may be built on the assumption that the Bible was inspired by God, something that a non-believer would not accept as true. A good rule of thumb is to “play the Devil’s Advocate” as @RichardG mentions, and check those assumptions.
1 Like
I’ve been going through a “desert” period with little joy. What sustains me is looking at, learning about, and “fixing” the ecology He gave us – it’s why some weeks I spend more time doing my conservation work than all other waking things combined.
You mean like Miriam did? and David?
“Drum and dance” may or may not be worship.
The most common positive result I’ve seen is a shift towards being willing to listen more. On campus I used to get frustrated with Campus Crusade folks who only saw “accepting Jesus” as a victory; I tried to explain that if someone was a mile away and they just got a hundred feet closer, that was a victory (and the next steps may likely be someone else’s job).
You could go Mandalorian and say, “This is the way”.
(what’s the minimum number of characters?)
Which is because so many Christians think that if something sounds convincing to them it surely must convince others!
I was at a swimming hole once where I ended up witnessing because someone saw me sitting on a rock staring at my hand and came over to ask why I was staring at my hand. I started off with the amazing fact that I exist to even have a hand, and without intending to ended up talking about Creation (via shared enjoyment of swimming holes) and on to redemption – at which point I added to my original answer that somehow (if Paul is to be believed) my hand had lessons about Christ.
She asked if I’d found any; I had to admit that I hadn’t gotten beyond appreciating my hand.
I’ve never bothered to check, but a church history professor once commented that apologetics in the early church was primarily personal, that it was generally only used with someone a Christian or Christians didn’t actually know when that person was attacking the faith, and then it was intended as refutation of the attacks (and the more public the attack, the more public the response).
In the U.S. it’s taken on the “Got to win!” attitude that leads to so much strife in politics and personally (it’s my explanation for why the U.S. has so much more violence – backing own or negotiating is “losing”)
And most seem more intent on “pwning” opponents than actually reaching anyone.
3 Likes
“My” categories are there to be demolished once the question was framed. I couldn’t care less whether stand in the end. That was part of the purpose of the question, really.
As with so many ways of thinking, categories themselves add to tHe problem.
Is that all that counts as apologetics? @Mervin_Bitikofer gave some broad-brush examples that are more varied, I think.
Not having taken the time to read the article you provided, do you see a difference between aplogetics and sound preaching of the word?
And @T_aquaticus, this from the article you shared:
But I believe it is because the apologetics world is steeply embedded into a fight to the death ethic when it comes to cultural conversations that it began to push me toward extremism and anger. I learned to hate my enemy although I was told that I was just “telling the truth.” But when it comes to wartime, you have to hate your enemy or you won’t have the courage or will to fight.
This is what I’ve seen called apologetics This is not what anyone needs. It’s like Culture Warriors of the Round Table blessed by the Holy Grail. Go out and slaughter all the demonic spawn who think and believe wickedly in the name of the Lord.
Thank you for this, Richard. Your comments above were largely why I asked this question. Myron Penner (book group thread a few summers ago) talked in his book The End of Apologetics about what I think he called “The Modern Apologetics Industry” (or something like that). In that he was differentiating a specific “brand” of apologetics, which is what I think most of us are referring to here.
The thing that includes “debates” between famous “atheists” and “apologists” and book sales and event sales, and contentiousness, etc. is unfortunately what most people even know of or think of, when “apologetics” comes to mind. The word, as well as that particular form of talk about faith, has become corrupted, in my opinion.
I’m very glad you spoke up in this way, and I am grateful that there are people like you who understand the concept in the way you do. And practice it. I would love to hear you preach sometime.
What does this mean? And how does he proposed doing it?
Is debate a productive mode for discussing faith? It turns me off and away.
Interesting contrast between Malcolm X and W. L. Craig.
Someone who spent his life experiencing backlash, marginalization and danger to the point of death contrasted against someone in the majority group times over.
5 Likes
- WLC kept the term in the Faith-based realm; Malcolm X made it a Political term.
3 Likes
And X’s life was on the line.
He also understood the political nature of a religious witness, particularly one that afirmed the value of all people, not just the ones with power.
2 Likes
And yet individuals on a daily basis go to great lengths to be or beat "the Jones’s " next door. The human wish to compete requires considerable effort…whether physical or mental.
On an earthmoving job once, I remember seeing two neighbours out on their front lawns, on hands and knees, with scissors cutting grass. Whilst clearly over the top, i have to conceed, these two front lawns truly looked better than carpet.
So whats the problem with apologetics?
Sermons that are totally apologetics should only rarely happen, and that on special occasions. The best time is when a particular piece matches the theme of the sermon and it can be woven in as one of the sermon’s points.
Especially when the apologetics is actually someone arguing for something that just makes Christians look stupid! I think everyone here knows my story of shutting down a gloom-and-doom God-loves-to-torment-sinners preacher on campus once just because I had my Greek New Testament along and challenged one of his claims, but I opposed some apologetics preachers (my brain is tired; my fingers originally typed “creatures”) who weren’t accomplishing anything but pissing people off. When the crowd in that case found out I was also a Christian, he lost his audience as they swung to me wanting to know why some Christians are so rude and arrogant and condemnatory as that preacher came across – talk about being put on the spot! I had to answer so as not to degrade the preacher while giving a good answer to the crowd.
A Campus Crusade for Christ staffer maintained that university students should be a prime audience for being rational and open to persuasion by " facts, logic, and experience". I countered that they get enough of that in class.
1 Like
If you read the proper explaination of apologetics, it becomes quite apparent it is a necessary and important part of our defense a humans.
The term apologetics derives from the Ancient Greek word apologia (ἀπολογία).[1] In the Classical Greek legal system, the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), the accusation or charge, and the defendant replied with an apologia, the defence.[5] The apologia was a formal speech or explanation to reply to and rebut the charges. A famous example is Socrates’ Apologia defense, as chronicled in Plato’s Apology.
In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says “I make my defense” in Acts 26:2.Apologetics - Wikipedia
1 Like
According to one Christian:
To be fair, the author of that blog leaned much more heavily into the Culture Warrior type of apologetics described by @Kendel , which is different than the type of apologetics @RichardG is describing.
1 Like
I’d point to C.S. Lewis’ writings such as [u]Mere Christianity[/] as good examples. He addressed things people were thinking about in society already, and he didn’t go in to “win”.
I’m going to have to think about that. My first thought is that it’s a debate about which apologetics to use. My view is that you use whichever gets more people actually interested in listening, which I’ve never seen happening in response to YEC presentations; mostly people stopped to laugh and harass.
At the Christian study center just off the university campus a professor divided apologetics into categories; the only ones I remember are Socratic and Ciceronic, the one a matter of getting the audience (one person) to reach conclusions himself rather than stating them, the other set out points and summed them calmly.
That’s just one way to do it.
A sermon should be instruction of the faithful using exposition of scripture and including both Law and Gospel. That’s not apologetics.
Beliefnet used to do a good job, up until they shut down their forums.
1 Like
Public debate certainly isn’t what I did on debate team in high school, where theater or emotion in arguments was a solid way to lose points.
That’s a great description!
The Christian study center just off campus when I was in my university days hosted a debate between an ultra-Calvinist and a moderate Methodist. It was very formal, and if the audience thought the moderator wasn’t keeping things civil they could speak up and say so. I don’t remember a thing either speaker said (except the Calvinist started out, “I’m glad to see God predestined us all to be here today”) but I remember how civil and even friendly it was. It did leave people talking mostly about the debate during the coffee-plus (plus whatever the staff could scrounge up) hour afterwards and beyond.
Having used grass shears before, I am impressed – that takes not just a lot of patience but serious skill!
2 Likes
Being on debate team was something so intense it changed us lowly high school students; we tended to put in more time on debate materials and practice than on pretty much all our schoolwork. That tends to ingrain the debate attitude, and my “inner debater” remains alive despite my best efforts to unseat him. This is amplified by how much debate was part of grad courses (Readings in Augustine was almost nothing but debate!) which also added “lecture mode” which wasn’t a whole lot different than debate mode except an opposing response wasn’t expected.
That expectation is I think where the debate mindset sort of settles; debaters learn to be alert to argue against whatever the opponent says, and that transfers too easily to real life.
1 Like
The sciences ingrain that same attitude. You are always trying to tear your own work apart because you know others will once it is published. You also do the same with other peoples’ work. Trying to poke holes in a scientific conclusion part of the job, within reason. However, there is that point where you nod your head and say that it’s good work. Luckily, in the sciences we have data to settle the debate.
What makes other debates more difficult, IMO, is that they are subjective or philosophical in nature. There isn’t data to fall back on as the judge of who is right.
The Pavlovian debate response. 
I agree with your sentiments here. I have found myself falling into this same trap, and I don’t like the person I see when it happens. So I’m working on it, as I’m sure many others are as well. However, the most important step is being self aware so that you know what to fix.
4 Likes
Well if everyone is trying to be a jerk I guess it should be fine for Christians too. A race to the bottom.
Some competition in the right settings is good. But for learning what other people really think and value it isn’t helpful. Hopefully people will find enough meaning in their life that the need to compete won’t be such a compulsion.
2 Likes
That doesn’t sound a bit unusual to me–more of my summer awake is spent doing research than anything else.
I think 11
1 Like
And part of my problem in communicating with others about subjective topics is that facts, logic, and experience is how I think: e.g., subjective writing assignments take way longer than they are supposed to and start to drive me nuts to plan; but I can write a draft of a 20-page research paper or of a large poster (after doing all of the research) in only about 5-10 hours.
(My bigger challenge is meeting and getting to know people well enough to talk about such things, but that’s irrelevant to this thread.)
1 Like
Brilliant!
1 Like
It would appear that the attitude to apologetics would depend on your definition.
Apologetics would seem , to me at least, to imply a passive, defensive approach, where as preaching would imply a more persuasive stance.
Traditionally the "sermon in a church was very much an authoritarian attitude whereby the “flock” are persuaded , cajoled, even instructed on what to do, or understand… The pulpit being six feet above contradiction…
The modern approach seems to be less instructive and more inclusive. The sermon is also less dictatorial. Admittedly some people like to be told what to believe or do, and some traditional churches (in the sense of above) can be very popular in the short term, but there comes a point where there needs to be some respect from the front as well as the pew…
The “Higher” or “holier” than thou attitude does not cut the same mustard any more. The Priesthood of all believers is a leveller that negates human hierarchy and authority. The more humble approach is encouraged from the front and that can dissipate throughout the congregation.
Dogmatism only serves those with a similar viewpoint, it pushes away all others. In a world where Christianity is no longer seen as the norm, or even a virtue, a more apologetic approach may be the better route.
Richard
1 Like
Intellectual price-tag is just how much you’re willing to sacrifice your intuitions of what you know is right to have faith in something you can’t prove. You would raise the price-tag of a world-view through apologetics by showing that your world-view has a more rational stance than the other requiring them to have more faith in the truth than rational thought.
1 Like
That is a bold statement. Debates certainly have their pros. They are much more structured and organized than just open discussion (for the most part, it depends on what kind of debate you’re having). It is also simply just fun to watch or participate in (assuming no one is harboring malice). I don’t know that it is necessarily for theatrical effect. A lot of people debate for good reasons. Furthermore, even if it doesn’t necessarily convince you one way or another, it can certainly help you see how much you are willing to sacrifice for your belief.
1 Like