Defending Apologetics: Biblically and Practically
There are arguments against apologetics that are somewhat sophisticated. They exist on the “theory level.” Those are not what this little article is about. If all Christians are called to engage in apologetics (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), then we will want to be on guard for that very first defense involved—an apologetic for apologetics. The kind of objections to engaging in this activity are the sort we hear all the time. We hear them from laypeople in the church. In fact, we hear them most of all from those who struggle with a robust life of the intellect in other areas of Christian activity as well. In that sense, we are not surprised. But that does not mean that we do not need to think about these.
The form of this little primer will be as simple as the subject matter. I will divide this defense into two parts: a biblical defense and a practical defense. We can frame these as the answer to two questions: Does the Bible teach (or at least imply or encourage) the use of apologetics? And then we will want to ask what do we gain or lose if we are deficient in it.
The Biblical Case for Apologetics
Misunderstandings about what the Bible teaches on this subject start with what it says in the beginning. We have heard it many times: “The Bible itself starts with God existing and creating. It does not argue to God. It simply asserts the fact.” Our answer is that this is a non-sequitur. We agree to the fact, but what of it? It simply does not follow that because God begins His special revelation with His reality and His total sovereignty, without further ado, that therefore no valid role of argument is left. This assumes up front that human reasoning and speech ought always to mirror God’s reasoning and speech, from first to last. But this would lead to many absurdities. We are never given the task of special revelation, and thus we may add the false analogy to the list of fallacies this commits.
Now aside from the classic text in 1 Peter 3:15, which gives the mandate to all Christians to “make a defense” of their faith, Jude 3 tells us to “contend for the faith,” which treats faith in the objective sense, that is, as the body of doctrines. The example of the Gospel writers (see especially Luke 1:1-4 and John 20:30-31) is instructive. It shows us that their selection of what to include in the Gospels was aimed at their readers’ persuasion that Jesus was who He said He was. While Luke and John took different angels on doing that, the design was the same. In those Gospels we find Jesus Himself responding favorably to those who genuinely sought for truth. There is the most famous example of doubting Thomas, who said,
“Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (Jn. 20:25).
How does Jesus reply? He does not scorn him, but rather blesses his inquiry: “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe’” (v. 27). Douglas Groothuis cites Jesus’ response to John the Baptist in prison (Mat. 11:1-11) as another of the same class.1
Paul’s example in Acts displayed the art of reasoning with both Jews and Greeks in ways consistent with their presuppositions (17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 24:25). And 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 speaks of demolishing arguments and does not separate the intellectual battle from the battle over spiritual “strongholds.” It is Scripture itself that speaks of the clarity of God’s existence in the things that he has made (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:19-20). In short, the Bible never gives us license to pit the Bible against making a total rational defense. That the Bible is the inspired word of God means that it has power that our words do not have. But the difference is not that the Bible speaks to “spiritual things” whereas our arguments speak to “philosophical things” or “scientific things” or “historical things.” And whether we are talking about what the Scripture explicitly teaches or what goes beyond it, in either case we are using our reason.
Paul’s speech before King Agrippa in Acts 26 was literally a “defense” of his own life. Things were going so well that he was interrupted.
“And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.’ But Paul said, ‘I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.’ And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’” (vv. 24-28)
When the Apostle had earlier had Felix alone as his audience, we are told that, “as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, ‘Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you’” (Acts 24:25). There is no coincidence that self-control was part of what was reasoned about. Greek philosophy prided itself on keeping tight reins on man’s appetitive nature.
It may be asked whether Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 1-2 rules out apologetics. Such an application of Paul’s words assumes that apologetics must be placed in the categories of “wisdom of the world” or “words of eloquence” that run counter to the wisdom of the Spirit and the message of Christ crucified. But why should we accept this categorization? Consider that Paul did apologetics at Mars Hill in Acts 17, and in that very letter to the Corinthians (Ch. 15) used two brands of arguments about the resurrection: evidential in the first few verses and a logical argument about the necessity of the resurrection in vv. 12-19. Fideists often take the statements in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 out of context to pin apologetics as “relying” on worldly wisdom, as if it were an alternative to preaching. It can be conceived that way. But it need not be. If we were consistent, we could take anything that people will pit against gospel preaching and delegitimize it: music, art, ethical action, etc. Ultimately, it just was not Paul’s context.
The Practical Case for Apologetics
In order to bring all of this down to the bottom-most shelf, consider five reasons every Christian needs to improve in apologetics.
Reason 1. Your past experience with skeptics has been less than ideal.
We have to be careful to not sour on our perceived failures. I realize that the pragmatic effects of arguments on our audience can be a driving force (in fact the driving force) for how we conceive of the worth of doing apologetics. But this works a lot like evangelism in this sense. The objective cogency of arguments must be valued first, above how they happen to play to the crowd, and then continue to fine tune how to make them accessible to our audience. This may be counter-intuitive. But if we lose that resolve, we will find ourselves morphing our taste for truth according to that same blindness of the skeptic. It may seem hard to believe in our results-driven, mic-dropping generation, but persuasion is not proof. Master the sciences first—their rules and methods, in other words, that which shows objectively why a thing must be either true or false. The madness of the crowds does not get to define this.
But as far as when to draw the line with a particular person, there is a point when Jesus’ words about casting our pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6) must be taken into consideration. We can be increasingly gracious and we can always get clearer and sharper, but we cannot raise the dead. So let us never judge “how apologetics is going” by how many skeptics we can get into a Vulcan death grip of assent. That is sheer delusion.
Reason 2. You have your own doubts, and have even been told that doubt is good. We are told to “have mercy on those who doubt” (Jude 22). This teaches us two things about doubt: First, it is not a virtue in itself. That is, it is not a good place to be. Second, it is a place from which the saints do emerge and even lend a hand to others. But if one finds themselves in doubt, then certainly one is in no position to push away the study of apologetics. To do so would be to demand answers in anything else but answers. It would be to cry, “Help me in my unbelief!” out of one side of our mouths, and complain that the answers are coming too easy out of the other. Postmodernism has raised a generation of young people who revel in doubt as if it were a virtue, as if imperialistic ignorance declared of oneself and demanded of others was the very quintessence of humility. I have witnessed people in this sorry state of rabid confusion, and it is not somewhere we want to be. Having said that, there is a vast difference between reveling in doubt and recognizing areas of ignorance in ourselves. We are finite. We will always come to new horizons that make us realize how much we still have never looked into. This just means you are finite. We need to get comfortable with that, but then just as comfortable with moving forward with a study of it.
Reason 3. You have found specific topics—philosophy and science especially—beyond your comprehension level. This is especially true when it comes to philosophy and science. The average person feels instantly out of their league, even if they have the sense that the other person may well be faking it.
When it comes to philosophy, our first order of business is to understand that philosophical arguments are legitimate means of communication. That is a common obstacle for Christians who have been told that philosophy is equal to “the opinions of man” or “reason against faith.” On the other hand, each Christian has a choice to make for their own spiritual well being. We can either learn philosophical thinking, or we can stay closer to the confines of the church’s teaching until we do. But if one is going to interact with those who speak in philosophical terms, then it can be a form of double-mindedness to do anything less than learn the material. One cannot have it both ways. The church’s teaching office can give help both with learning philosophy as a Christian in general, and with responding to philosophical objections in particular. But such interaction is irreducibly philosophical; and, honestly, it is worth the hard work because the best method of apologetics is philosophical at its core.
When it comes to science, we must observe the generalist-specialist distinction. The simple truth is that most of the skeptics we encounter in real life have no more expertise in the material sciences than we do. We must take that average person back to that “point of departure,” which, when it comes to science, will be philosophy of science issues—the limits of science, its method, and its preconditions. Apart from that one is left with a psychological trick of sorts; and it will help to know a little bit of the history to expose it. Throughout the early modern era, the majority of scientists (and especially those credited with the main breakthroughs of the Scientific Revolution) were believers, not atheists. What changed was not any discovery of empirical science that rendered biblical faith actually incompatible with it. Rather the march of secular statism saw religion as the main obstacle to totalitarian control. Once a society has turned its public institutions over to state control, there is a vested interest in undermining religious belief and the church as an independent institution. Such states historically have used their funding to control where research goes through grant money, who gets hired (and who doesn’t), and what the curriculum will be. That is why the notion of “the science denier” has been hurled as it has, not only at Christians, but (as the past few years have awakened many to) to any private citizens or institutions that challenges the globalist state hegemony on what counts as acceptable information.
Reason 4. You know that all Christians must evangelize, but the conflict over intellectual difficulties put you outside of your comfort zone. This is a more general application of the previous point, but it needs to be said. What is the number one reason that most Christians give for not doing evangelism? For some it is laziness or insensitivity to the lost. Perhaps we have become sluggish in our own spiritual disciplines, such that we lack the love and joy that is fitting for a believer. However, in surveys taken on the subject—and I have always found this to be true in my conversations as a pastor with church members—the number one reason given is that people are afraid that they will not have answers to difficult questions. Some even have the same reasons for not engaging in conversation in class when they go to college, or at the workplace.
Reason 5. God just has placed in your life people with intellectual obstacles to faith.
More encouragement comes to us in what was said before about tailoring one’s approach to the real life people in front of you. God also brings the exact people into our lives in person-specific ways. Their backgrounds and learning rarely shift so suddenly that we do not have a handle on how they think. This prompts us to realize that we are free to specialize in areas where our interests and theirs already intersect: whether philosophical arguments, the natural sciences, evidences for biblical inspiration, or for the resurrection of Jesus, or things more existential such as the meaning of life, the prospects of happiness, or whether beauty is objective. So, yes, be a generalist as you begin your study, but do not be discouraged by resorting to becoming a specialist in a more narrow arena. Nothing is off the table and all of these belong to God. So Paul’s words, “The spiritual person judges all things” (1 Cor. 2:15) and “All things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:21) really apply to our study and application of defending the faith.
____________________
1. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 25-26.
