Are we selling apologetics short? (Part 2 of 2)
In the previous article we examined the traditional understanding of apologetics and why it can be difficult in today's context. And the primary reason is that we tend to adopt a defensive position - which for most people is extremely uncomfortable. and difficult to gain traction from. Especially when we heap pressure on ourselves to have all the answers and maybe see it as our only avenue for sharing our faith. No wonder evangelism is hard! But what if there was another way?
When we think of sports, the most successful teams and individuals have a strong blend of defensive and offensive abilities. Some will prefer one over the other, and you might hear a phrase like 'defence is the best form of offence', as it leaves the opponent open for a counter-attack. But most of us aren't necessarily sure what good 'offence' looks like, especially if the person isn't 'open'.
Now let me clear: talking the most meaningful things in life isn't a game of course. But the metaphor still stands in the way we can approach it, and perhaps we can unlock ways of sharing our faith in a way that is contextual, attractive, imaginative, pragmatic and elegant?
'Offence is the best defence' strategies
Something cool that Paul does throughout Acts is trying different strategies based on his context. In Chapter 17 he's in Athens and sees a city full of idols. He starts out with a friendly audience and 'reasons' in the synagogues and marketplaces (v17). His message provokes disputes, misunderstandings and questions (v18-19), and some want to know what he means (v20). Which gives him an opening, and here I think Paul uses a form of Positive Apologetics to make his case (v22-31). He points out that their mysterious idols littered throughout the city are representative of an unfulfilled need in all of this: connection with the Divine. He then fleshes out what that Divinity looks like from a Christian frame.
And we get these opportunities all the time. Opportunities to connect people with the transcendent. We don't always recognise the opening however.
My advice would be to start with something personal. To make the case for the hope that’s in us, and how Christianity is a force for good. These could be things like sharing how and why you became a Christian, why you’re still a Christian, and how it helps you navigate life. But you could also talk about the ripple effects that Christianity has had on the world throughout history.
Glen Scrivener’s wonderful book ‘The Air We Breathe’ is a great example of positive apologetics. He makes the case that many of our sacred values in the West are intrinsically Christian values that only arose thanks to the legacy of Christianity, and that most Western countries reject Christianity for very Christian reasons. Many of them tie back to values that the gospel itself embodies, and that people deeply care about. It also moves conversations from abstract problems into real life solutions that the gospel brings.
Speaking of solutions, we believe the gospel provides something that everyone is looking for: The good life. We tend to associate living well with wisdom, and there are real life studies coming out that show the benefits of spiritual practices and religious communities. These are worth sharing. Let’s call them Wisdom Apologetics.
For example - have you noticed the sudden interest in Sabbath from a secular perspective? Or did you know that regular religious attendance has positive health effects? Or there’s the fascinating data that Jewish Sociologist Ilana Horwitz makes the case that sending kids to church correlates with higher grades in school. Or recently it’s been found that suicide rates are significantly lower for people that have a clear spiritual framework to guide them. So not only is Christianity good for the world. It’s good for pragmatic reasons too. People might not want to engage with Christianity at an intellectual level, but they might give it a shot if it can provide practical benefits for their situation.
Other tips for Deeper Conversations
I want to share another couple of considerations for doing apologetics well and these mostly focus on our disposition and conversational stance. In the book of James it says we should be ‘Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger’, and so part of our apologetic responsibility involves listening. We ought to work hard at understanding different view points, perspectives and philosophical positions, and not from a position of winning and losing, but of empathy. Affirming the values (often Christian ones) that are noble and true, and seeking to genuinely understand the anguish and pain that people might have experienced in a religious setting.
This could even lead to a form of apologetics that apologises. Sometimes when defining apologetics we bend over backwards to point out that it is not ‘apologising for our faith’ but defending it. And yeah we can all give a slow clap…But sometimes apologies are not only warranted, but are necessary for real life Christian failings of the church and individuals.
In a largely biblically illiterate culture, sceptics won’t necessarily know the difference between what a church tacitly endorses/condones and what the Bible fiercely critiques. And so it’ll likely be up to us to acknowledge when the church is not keeping in step with the teachings of Jesus.
Now these things are not necessarily apologising because we personally have done anything wrong (though sometimes we might have!), but accepting that we are representing that movement and the movement has some explaining to do. Even if they are sins of the past, the hurt can carry through generations. An apology won’t fix the problem, but it can show evidence of a faith willing to self-correct when human weakness spills out. The church has a Schrödinger-esque quality of being both holy and fallible at the same time. And we can acknowledge both, knowing God will use it as his chosen vehicle.
Lastly the Bible talks about having a good reputation with outsiders, particularly for those in Christian leadership (1 Tim 3:7). No doubt it’s talking about our moral fortitude, but I suspect it’s also our ability to simply talk to people with differing viewpoints with that gentleness and respect that Peter commands. And what better way to build connection and trust, than by having conversations that are interesting, honest, meaningful and memorable. I suspect people are hungry for these kinds of conversations, so maybe we can emerge from the back closet. Often ‘the problem with Christianity’ is that people haven’t experienced the love of God firsthand through Christian communities and individuals.
We hope you’ll join us for the Dive Deeper campaign. And maybe after a spiritual conversation with you, their problems might prove to be no problem at all.
