Have you ever found yourself stumped after someone
challenges your faith? You’ve reasoned
and quoted till your brain feels tied in a knot and the other guy seems like
he’s barely breaking an intellectual sweat.
You just want to shove “The Bible says so!” down their throat and make
all their science and logic go away.
Well, there is good news for you: Apologetics!
Apologetics comes from the same Greek word from which we
get ‘apology,’ but apologetics is not saying you’re sorry. Apologetics is, in some ways, sort of the
opposite; it is to speak or reason in favour or defence of something. In modern Christianity, apologetics is used
to explain what we believe, why we believe it, and how to defend it against
critics.
In the past several years, the church, seeing how many people
have lost faith over basic questions about science and doctrine, has increased
its efforts in the field of apologetics to help people with struggling faith
and unanswered questions. People like
Ken Ham, Ravi Zacharias, and Lee Strobel have provided books, films, and
curriculums filled with information explaining how faith really isn’t so
irrational. Knowledge/information is
power. Put strong apologetics in
someone’s hand, and you’re giving them the key to an atomic power. But will they use that power to energise
their faith or to build a bomb?
It can feel so good to finally have the answers to the
hardest questions that may have once plagued one’s faith. There’s a sort of victorious feeling that
comes from stopping a critic and their argument dead in their tracks. But if you take a closer look at Christians
who were formerly atheists, I challenge you to find a single one of them who
was won over to Christ by someone arguing with them. What happens when we begin to muddle the line
between apologetics and witnessing?
A current trend in evangelical circles is to put
apologetics in the context of a supposed “culture war.” I mentioned this several articles back, when
I took a survey of the variety of people around me in an army base (many of
whom would be considered on the other
side of this “war”) asking them what they thought about said war, finding they
had never heard of such a ridiculous thing.
Evangelicals seem to enjoy a sense of ‘us-against-the-world,’ which is
understandable, given that as Christians we are
called to be in the world, but not belong to it. But who wants to join a religion that makes
them feel vilified? What would happen if
we stopped packaging apologetics in ammo crates and used first-aid kits instead? What if we made it clear to students of
apologetics that they are being handed not ammunition to shoot down their
opponent or their arguments, but instead as medicine to heal and improve their
own lacking understanding?
The Sword of the Spirit is an incredibly powerful and
important tool. Use it right, and you
will block the enemy’s attacks every time, protecting your heart, mind, spirit,
and soul; use it improperly, and you’ll only strike down potential friends and
allies. Apologetics is not about winning
arguments, but personal growth and learning.
Someone arguing against faith may not feel impressed or their heart
touched by an argument, but what if they saw someone focusing on building their
own personal faith and encouraging others instead of blasting anyone who
doesn’t believe? While perhaps a bit
cliché, the old saying is still true: actions speak louder than words. A faith of good, loving works free from doubt
is a powerful witness. Jesus didn’t preach
the gospel of being right - He preached the gospel of Love.
Our English word ‘apology’ may not mean the same thing as
the original Greek word, but I think it’s just as important. There are so many people out there for whom
an apology goes so much further than apologetics. If I want to leave a
potential debate opponent speechless, a sure-fire way is if I apologise for how
often the church in general (but especially myself personally) completely
misrepresents Jesus Christ and misses the mark.
I find myself needing to give apologies far more often than needing to give
apologetic arguments. By all means learn
to understand and speak up for your faith, but not at the cost of learning
God’s language of Love. After all, I’m
right.
I do think there is a slight flaw with the "actions speak louder than words" approach though.
ReplyDeleteAtheists aren't arguing that they are the only ones capable of being good and finding fulfillment in their lives as nonbelievers, they are arguing that being good and personal growth and happiness is not something the religious have a monopoly on.
They don't go around thinking that Christianity has never done any good for anyone. At most they will think it has never done anything good that could not have been achieved through other means.
Indeed, sometimes, using it as an example can backfire spectacularly. One big pitfall I see occasionally is the statement "Before I gained a personal relationship with Jesus, I would [insert crime or bad deed here] and if I were to lose my faith, I would go back to doing it."
This has incredibly bad implications, foremost being "I am only acting like a decent person because I would get in trouble if I did not." but even without that one, it implies that the Atheist either is a bad person with no morality or that said atheist is just borrowing his morality from Christianity and this is not actually his own morality. Both of which is not only rude to imply, but likely false.
A thing to always keep in mind with atheists is that many don't believe in God for the same reason you and I don't believe in Baal or Odin or Shiva.
Thank you for your input! I agree with a lot of what you've said to an extent, but I've never really been sure if there's much of a logical consensus within atheism concerning from where morality comes if it can't come from God. A lot of what I hear is something of an appeal to basic utilitarianism, but even that has much of its origins in at least semi-Christian philosophy.
DeleteI wouldn't say that a person who stops doing something bad on account of a new-found relationship with Christ is necessarily doing so simply out of fear of getting in trouble. That may be the case with some, but for many it stems from a revelation of *why* what they were doing was wrong as opposed to simply a blind "well the Bible says it's wrong" approach. And there are a number of "grey issues" which perhaps we don't agree or fully understand what makes them wrong; and if a person's faith was what brought them out of such an issue, it is only logical that if at some point faith ceases to be a factor in their lives, they would go back to doing it.
The point that atheists don't believe in God just as we don't believe in pagan gods like the ones you mentioned is quite true. But it can be helpful to point out that we don't actually disbelieve these things for exactly the same reasons. The character of the God of the Bible is one of 'natura ex Dei' (nature out of God), whereas the pagan gods of pantheism are 'deus ex naturae' (god out of nature). These gods are obviously fabricated by man out of their natural surroundings, but Christianity tells us of a God who created nature and is in every way superior to it.
Very good point, Erik. I've gotta say I've fallen into the "apologetics" pit one too many times myself. I have a tendency to argue and I see that it's not exactly healthy for me or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that those outside Christianity could use more apologies and those inside could occasionally use more apologetics in order to curb the current trend of misrepresentation. I always ask people to question their own thoughts and motives. I just want them to think, you know? But sometimes, I'll admit I take it a little too far. Thanks for the encouragement, Erik, and keep up the great work.