Defining Apologetics: What it Is and Is Not
“but in your hearts honor 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.”
1 Peter 3:15
Apologetics is the reasoned defense of the Christian faith from the Greek word apologia, meaning either a reason given, or defense. Some form of the word appears seven other times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Corinthians 9:3; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Philippians 1:7, 16; and 2 Timothy 4:16. The word is used in that text by the Apostle Peter: “always being prepared to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν) to anyone who asks you for a reason (λόγον).” Of the second word, logon, it is used in several different ways in the New Testament. Here it has the sense of a rational ground for belief or action, as in Matthew 5:32, 12:36, Acts 10:29, 20:24, and Romans 14:12.
Notice in our central text about the Greek words for “defense” and “reason,” that they have the same root in the idea of “word” or “logic.” Some have pointed out that this word had connotations of the formal courtroom trial, as in the Trial of Socrates, recorded by Plato and being titled The Apology. Boa and Bowman say that, “The accused would attempt to ‘speak away’ (apo—away, logia—speech) the accusation.”1 However we might understand the origin of the word, the Christian use of it has implied something of a comprehensive and rational case for faith. William Lane Craig calls it “that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith.”2
This will not sound very attractive to everyone. “Argument” and “truth claims” are unpopular enough in our age, and the notion that we as Christians are in some trial of sorts may capture the anxious feeling of many in thinking about this subject. True, such a “defense” can occur in a great lecture hall, but it can also occur on a street corner, a beachside boardwalk, or at a table in the local coffee shop. The first thing that matters is what that verse in 1 Peter 3:15 suggests, namely, that all Christians are called to engage in this activity in one form or another.
We will attempt to get a definition from a positive and a negative perspective. In other words, we will first ask what apologetics is, and then rule out a few things that apologetics is not.
What Apologetics Is
Before we can see what the Bible might have to say about apologetics beyond that one passage, we ought to know what it is we are looking for. There are three dimensions to apologetics, which different authors call by different names. The labels used by John Frame seem to me to be the simplest, namely: (1) proof; (2) defense; (3) offense.3 Some important distinctions between these may be noted. Especially important is the object that each of these act upon.
Proof, at least meant in this general way, means offering reasons to believe that the Christian worldview is true or reasonable. Francis Beattie called this the “defense,”4 that is, of Christianity as a total system. Bernard Ramm said that this is “to show how the Christian faith is related to truth claims.” Frame’s categorization here is better, as what this ought to have in mind is positive demonstration. As we will see later on, we will need to be more specific here about the difference between proof and evidence. The object that this acts upon is a category creation in the mind.
Defense involves countering reasons to believe that Christian worldview is false or unreasonable. This Beattie called “vindication” and Ramm described as showing “Christianity’s power of interpretation.” That latter description may seem odd, but the basic idea is that a difficulty has been brought up, whether an allegation of a contradiction in the Bible or the charge of immorality against Christians in the past or whatever. Here, the object acted upon is the charge itself. It requires a combination of deconstruction and alternative explanation.
Offense implies offering reasons to believe that non-Christian worldviews are false and unreasonable. Beattie and Ramm both used similar language here, that of refutation.5 Here the object acted upon are those presuppositions held by the opposition. These can be shown to be both incoherent in their own right, but also insufficient in their role of justifying other beliefs as a consequence.
To effectively include all three of these dimensions is to have communicated three propositions, according to Boa and Bowman: “Christianity is reasonable … Christianity is not unreasonable … non-Christian thought is unreasonable.”6
We move from theory to practice is what books on this subject will often call an apologetics encounter—which is just a fancy way to say “conversation between a believer and unbeliever about the reasons for belief and unbelief.” So, in that real life apologetic encounter, our starting point and our distribution of these three components will be situation-specific. Not only will it be person-specific, but, as crowds form or other background data comes to our attention, we must aim our communication at the real person in real time.
Much is made about “common ground” when it comes to the apologetic encounter. We must actually be more specific. What the Christian apologist needs to do is to locate his hearer’s most specific “point of departure” that exists within the more general area of common ground.
In other words, I must get to know not only that list of things that my audience and I agree on versus those things we do not, but then I must drill down a layer to discover on what set of reasons that second list of his begins to differ with mine. This I call the “point of departure” because it is the exact ground that needs to be challenged. No matter how many rabbit trails the conversation takes, or how evasive my interlocutor may become, I need to begin to build an incessant system of bee-lines back to the point of departure, which he will start to sense like a sore tooth being poked at.
What Apologetics Is Not
Contrary to some popular misconceptions, there are a few things that apologetics is not.
Apologetics is not arguing people into the kingdom. I suspect that many of the people who have this concern are uncomfortable with conflict in general. Out of this discomfort, they view the apologist’s effort as a classic case of doing something “in the flesh,” or apart from God’s power. However, God uses many kinds of secondary causes: some more so than others. J. Gresham Machen explained why reasons to believe would rank so high on that list of secondary causes.
“God usually exerts power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.”7
Apologetics is not an alternative to the work of the Holy Spirit. This misunderstanding is really only a more refined version of the first. The problem is posed to us in this way: Why apologetics if the Holy Spirit regenerates? There are a few answers: 1. because the Scriptures command it at least in a general sense (1 Pet. 3:15); 2. because biblical figures exemplify it (Acts 17); 3. because God uses means, just as in the reasoning involved in preaching (Rom. 10:14-17) and He himself reasons with the sinner (Isa. 1:18); 4. Because part of evangelism is speaking in the terms of a particular culture, and that includes their basic presuppositions of the way the world is (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
Some of what produces this difficulty comes from lopsided doctrinal explanations. As Reformed people especially, we can often commit the either-or and non-sequitur fallacies in one fell swoop by saying, “The problem is moral—not intellectual.” Many texts of Scripture would tell us that all disbelief has its causal explanation in a natural inability of man. We are dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1-3), blinded by the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), and unable to grasp spiritual truth for what it is (1 Corinthians 2:14). But none of this is meant to deny that there are not what we might call “intellectual roadblocks,” so that even those real blindspots are just that, spots in the normal functioning of the soul that cannot, because it will not, come to the light, because our deeds are evil. We must be born again (John 3:3), but when we are born again our minds will be in the process of renewal (Rom. 12:2).
All of this requires total truth, not non-truth. In other words, Scripture tends to intertwine the moral and intellectual problems as a function of distorted souls that are just as distorted in mind as they are in affections (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 1:18-32; Eph. 4:17-19).
Interestingly, some will see that very truth and conclude that we should therefore speak to the heart and not to the mind. But surely this is an odd inference. Light to the mind and heat to the heart are of one necessary redemptive substance. If depravity is both moral and intellectual, why would redemptive speech not also be both moral and intellectual? Although it is a complex subject, there is actually an important distinction to make between that liberty which was lost in original sin and the ability that would find God if it wanted to: “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13). That mankind does not naturally seek God simply begs the question as to what appeals should be made to the mind in the process of the Spirit’s overall work, which — I would remind the reader — is wholly mysterious to us as finite observers anyway. At any rate, what matters here is that the Holy Spirit uses means and even the Scripture uses categories of nature. Our aversion to provide such means and categories is really nothing but intellectual laziness, and hyper-spiritual superstition to cover up that laziness.
Apologetics is not the substitution of reason for faith. In other words, some people are concerned that if I win you with arguments, then I have not won you to Christ. Furthermore, whatever I believe because I understand it, I can no longer take on faith. Thus there is a zero-sum game where the objects of reason begin to crowd out the objects of faith. The more we come to know, the more we will find that we need to trust God for those things He keeps a mystery (cf. Deut. 29:29). But on the basics of whether or not faith is reasonable, reason cannot be avoided. On the other hand, reason cannot be a show. Christian integrity demands that an apologist not substitute reasoned answers with propaganda. It is far better to say “I don’t know—but I will definitely look into it,” than to pretend to know or even to throw up irrelevant slogans or hasty verbal smokescreens to buy time, or to cover up blind spots.
Apologetics is not merely pre-evangelism. One problem with seeing apologetics as “pre-evangelism” is that it will be rushed and formulaic. It may come across as an “ice breaker.” Personal evangelism is often a marathon, even a lifelong process. Why should we expect apologetics to be much different?
Apologetics is not mere proof-texting. That statement made both by Spurgeon and by Barth—namely, to “Let the lion out of its cage!”—certainly has a pious ring, but it amounts to speaking in riddles. What exactly does a proof-text prove? It depends on the context. This misconception can actually be made more respectable.
For example, suppose it was asked: “Shouldn’t we at least start the skeptic with what the Bible says and answer them from there?” Here a rational defense is being permitted, yet such defense is only concerned in a narrow sense with what the Bible actually says.
To this we may reply, first of all, that it depends on what the objection is from the skeptic. If the objection regards a matter of fact as presented in Scripture (e.g. “Scripture says or does not say X,” or “These two scriptures contradict each other.”), then in that case, yes, we go to the Scripture to correct them. Although in that latter example, the nature of the objection moves beyond a simple matter of fact and regards a logical relationship between two facts. In that case, one is bound to use abstract reasoning to show why any two or more texts do not contradict. There are no Bible passages that will explain the rules of logic or apply them in correction. Now if the objection is not an appeal to Scripture in any sense, then we go to that arena of general revelation that is relevant: whether philosophical proofs, scientific or historical facts, or more existential matters.
Apologetics is not for some special class of Christians alone. 1 Peter 3:15 already settles this, but we can also infer the same from evangelism. Now in making this inference, we must anticipate an objection. If I say that “all evangelism must take apologetics into account,” I do not mean that all evangelism is apologetics. Nor am I even saying that every evangelism encounter will include an apologetics encounter. However, in the spirit of the words of 1 Peter 3:15, specifically regarding the stance of readiness, all evangelism should at least be “apologetics-ready,” if I can use that expression. Consider this syllogism:
1. All Christians are evangelists.
2. All evangelism is “apologetics-ready.”
∴ All Christians are “apologetics-ready.”
Now I happen to think that there are other reasons for Christians who are not “professional apologists” to also learn apologetics. The discipling tasks of a pastor, teacher, or parent are cases in point. But this will suffice for to answer this misunderstanding.
Apologetics is neither flaunting, nor pummeling others with, one’s intellect. This is not very controversial, at least not on paper. Any genuine Christian will operate out of a basic stance of earnestly desiring the salvation of the person to whom we are speaking. This misunderstanding comes not by being defended, but by poor examples, a lack of maturity, or a loss of self-control. Our insecurities have much to do with it. We do not want to look like a fool. As much as we want to believe and try to motivate ourselves out of love for our audience, it is often a short step to letting our pride get the better of us.
In chasing away misconceptions, we must also find a balance between two extremes. Apologetics must avoid choosing between its inviting and silencing functions. The Scriptures clearly call us to both. Our opening text in 1 Peter demands “gentleness and respect” for the purpose of gaining a further audience with the unbeliever; and yet Paul teaches that elders must be able to silence the mouths of those whose attacks of Christian truth are upsetting personal faith in Titus 1:9-11. So there is both warm persuasion and sharper refutation. Wisdom dictates when each is called into action.
________________________
1. Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 17.
2. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), xi.
3. John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1994), 2.
4. Francis Beattie, Apologetics: or the Rational Vindication of Christianity, 1:56.
5. Bernard Ramm, A Christian Appeal to Reason (Waco, TX: Word, 1972), 15-19.
6. Boa and Bowman, Faith Has its Reasons, 17.
7. J. Gresham Machen, “Christianity and Culture” in Christianity, Education, and the State, ed. John W. Robbins (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1987), 51.
