First, a brief definition. "Apologetics" is only a distant relative of today's concept of "apology." It comes from a Greek term that was part of a Greek court proceeding. It was, in essence, the argument of the defense. It simply refers to the reasons why you should believe that he didn't do it, so to speak. It is, then, a reasoned defense. (Our evolved use of the term, then, is the "defense" asking for forgiveness.)
Okay, fine. So how did Wacky Andrew (that's how he refers to the Andrew that argues against the truth) argue against Christians using apologetics? Well, there were a variety of points. It doesn't work. (You can't reason a person into the kingdom.) "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Argumentation isn't love. All of the objections, in fact, turned on the concept of warfare. The idea, it seems, is that apologetics is an attack. It is intended to argue people into the kingdom -- to win converts by reason. This is not a good thing.
I would have to agree with Wacky Andrew in that perspective. Attempting to argue people into believing is not a good idea. But ... that's not what Apologetics is, is it? Notice what I said in the definition: "It is a reasoned defense." I suspect that many over-zealous Christians jump into Apologetics with both feet hoping to do exactly what Wacky Andrew argued against. They want to win converts. They want to argue people into the kingdom. They want to tell you why you should believe. Oddly, that's not something we are told to do. Oh, we are commanded to engage in Apologetics, but we are not commanded to win converts by it. Look at the command:
In your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame (1 Peter 3:15-16).We are not commanded to "always go on the offense"; we are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense." See that? We aren't called to give reasons why they should believe; we are called to explain why we believe. It is not a matter of convincing them, but explaining us.
More importantly, perhaps, note the section I highlighted in bold. Our defense is not to be ... offensive. It is not to be angry, irate, disrespectful. It is not to be snarky or sarcastic. It is to be "with gentleness and respect." You see, that is a whole other approach to Apologetics. Peter in this passage does not say, "Dazzle them with your brilliance." He says, "Have a good conscience and behavior so good that they have nothing bad to say about you." Somehow "Argue them into the kingdom" doesn't seem to fit into this concept at all.
When was the last time your Apologetics was based on good behavior? When was the last time your argument fundamentally resting on gentleness and respect? When was the last time you viewed it as a defense rather than an attack? This is what we are commanded to do. If you are doing something different, maybe it's time to reconsider. As wacky as Andrew can be, I think he had a lot of good points about what Apologetics ought not be.
7 comments:
Ummm...
You might want to look at the passage you posted again. Verses 15 and 16 do not really stand alone. They are in the context of someone already being persecuted for righteousness... for example being hauled up in front of a court.
I haven't greatly studied the issue, but it doesn't seem to me that these verses can be used willy nilly for all apologetics.
More later. Maybe :)
25Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
Okay, so let me see if I understand what you're getting at. I said that when we engage in defense of our beliefs, we should do so with gentleness and reverence. We should not be on the attack. My premise was that we won't be arguing anyone into the kingdom. It would appear that you are disagreeing. It would seem that you are saying that the passage doesn't work the way I see it. (I looked ... in context. It seems to me to be more supportive than less. That is, it is in the face of persecution that Peter calls us to make a defense with gentleness and respect.) It looks like you're suggesting (especially with the second comment) "Go ahead ... be mean ... yell and shout. Be as rude and offensive as you want to be."
Now, I emphasized those words ("appear", "seem", "look like") because I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. On the other hand, if it's not, I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting.
Bottom line, we don't believe because of good apologetics.
Well, first of all what I am saying is that one shouldn't post those verse without verse 14.
Secondly I am saying that in light of Romans 13 it is perfectly reasonable that *in those circumstances* one might need to be more 'meek' than at other times.
As it is normally thought of, not all of the 'apologetics' that Paul and Jesus engaged it would be called exactly 'gentle'. "Whoa to you hypocrites' would not be considered 'gentle' by most nowadays.
von,
First, just a note. As I know you are concerned about using biblical language, I think it's important to point out that Jesus didn't say "Whoa" to any hypocrites. He said "Woe", a radically different concept.
Second, I would make two comments. First, I would not consider what Jesus said to the Pharisees "apologetics". He was not attempting to "make a defense". He was not explaining what He believed. He was exhorting and/or reproving. Different concept. (Same with Paul.) In fact, I don't see much in the way of "apologetics" -- a rational defense of why we believe what we believe -- in the Bible as an expression to someone else. I see lots of rational reasons for what we believe laid out to the reader, but not to others. Paul makes a rational defense of the future resurrection of the saints, as an example, in 1 Cor. 15, but it isn't done angrily or in an unkind manner.
I would never argue that there is no room for what appears to be angry or harsh remarks. (I can't find it quickly, but I have argued the opposite in the past.) It is obviously necessary at times to be angry, to reprove, to exhort, and we obviously have biblical examples of that very thing. But apologetics as the rational defense of why we believe what we believe shouldn't, in my view, be more offensive than the Gospel already is in itself. That's my only point.
Woe unto me for posting by typing in directly instead of copy/pasting (which is my norm)
We probably agree here, but there were some things in your original post which could be taken wrongly (IMHO).
There is a time, as you point out, for all sorts of ways of dealing with others. Some of these the world would call very 'attacking' (you will recall in your original post you seemed to argue against 'attack') God uses these different methods to bring people into his kingdom.
I read your original post as denying that these 'offensive' (pun intended) methods were 'out of bounds' for a Christian, and that they were never part of what brought people to Christ.
As to the exact definition of when it is 'apologia' and when it is 'exhortation' or 'rebuke' or 'condemnation'... we probably agree. The original post seemed to leave me in a post modern vacuum of 'just tell me what you believe, don't try to convince me it is right, or the only way, or any such'.
Not saying that is what you said, just how it came across.
Ah, I see the problem. I mentioned "offensive" and you read it to mean "offensive" as opposed to "defensive" while I meant it as "offensive" as opposed to "kind".
No, no, no, I hope that no one else will read what I wrote and conclude, "He means, 'Just tell me what you believe, don't try to convince me it is right.'" On one hand, I do mean "Don't try to convince me" (because that's God's job). On the other hand, I ddo not mean "Just tell me what you believe." I mean "Include the whole truth (such as 'it's the only way') and tell them why ... just exclude the acrimony."
Post a Comment