What Are the Biggest Misconceptions about Apologetics?

Bulletin Roundtable

Bulletin Roundtable Question

Below, our four contributors respond to the question: "What is one common misconception about apologetics or the Christian worldview that you would love to see cleared up?"

Paul Copan

A common misconception about apologetics is this: the apologist should focus solely on rational argumentation. We must “give a defense” using “proofs” for God’s existence or stockpile abundant evidences for Jesus’ bodily resurrection to refute unbelief and skepticism. Of course, some Christians have the idea that apologetics is basically “beating up people for Jesus,” and David Baggett’s recent piece nicely addresses that problem. Yes, rational arguments have a vital place in paving the way for the gospel, by the power of God’s Spirit—including clearing away misconceptions and caricatures that unbelievers may have so that they might see the real Jesus more clearly. And let’s not forget that apologetics is good for the Christian too. As theologian Avery Dulles put it, there is an infidel inside each believer’s heart; so we need to attend to intellectual doubts and questions within ourselves.

 What I want to focus on here—something I address in my recently published Loving Wisdom book (Eerdmans)—is this: a purely rational apologetic can seem detached and perhaps even hollow because it focuses on only one facet of our complex human nature.  But what about a more holistic apologetic that considers the whole person? What about existential arguments for God’s existence, as Clifford Williams proposes in Existential Reasons for Belief in God (IVP Academic). The apologist should be prepared to offer practical reasons for faith in light of the human fear of death, the problem of guilt and shame, and the search for significance and meaning.

What about defending the gospel through literary classics and the use of imagination? The late literature professor Louise Cowan became a Christian through reading the classics—Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and Shakespeare. She had found early on that intellectual arguments for the Christian faith didn’t connect with her. She wrote in her book Invitation to the Classics:

Not until a literary work of art awakened my imaginative faculties could the possibility of a larger context than reason alone engage my mind. I had been expecting logical proof of something one was intended to recognize. What was needed was a way of seeing. I had to be transformed in the way that literature transforms by story, image, symbol before I could see the simple truths of the gospel. Above all else this seems to me the chief value of what we call the classics: they summon us to belief. They seize our imaginations and make us commit ourselves to the self-evident, which we have forgotten how to recognize. . . . Even for the things ordinarily considered certain, we moderns require proof. In this state of abstraction, we are cut off from the fullness of reality. Something has to reach into our hearts and impel us toward recognition.

In his Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis intended to use stories to engage the imagination. He wanted to get past the “watchful dragons” of intellectual resistance in order to help people see the world differently. The imagination asks: What if the world really is this way? What if a loving God really exists and has revealed himself in Jesus after all? Could it be that in Christ all the pieces fall into place?

As Lewis was coming out of atheism, he was persuaded by his Inkling friends to reimagine how the Jesus of history could be “myth became fact”; Lewis came to see that the fragmentary myths in various religions, cultures, and great literature depicting grace, cleansing, forgiveness, redemption, goodness, and beauty pointed to their historical realization in Jesus of Nazareth.

Personal stories and thoughtful discussions of thought-provoking films and literature may open up new horizons as we engage the contemporary mind. As Louise Cowan discovered, by using the imagination to see the world with new eyes, reason can then be reengaged to revisit the Christian faith to see how it more clearly addresses our most profound questions and deepest longings than do alternative philosophies of life. Once reason can reevaluate and make judgments about the sense of these answers, finally the will is better positioned to respond.

Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) answered the question, “How many ways are there to God?” by saying, “As many as there are people.” Each of us is wired differently, and some pointers to God will be more powerful to us than others. While rational argumentation is critical to apologetics, we must consider a wider range of supports for the gospel.

Paul M. Gould

A common misconception about apologetics is that it is only for the “elites” or “intellectuals” or “professionals.” This could not be further from the truth. Peter’s plea in 1 Peter 3:15 is to all believers. All believers ought to be prepared to share the reason for the hope within. Apologetics is for everyone. Moreover, when Jesus ascended to heaven, he told his disciples that they would be his witnesses from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Notice, Jesus didn’t say, “you might be my witness.” Rather, he said, “you will be my witness.” None of us has any choice in the matter—as followers of Christ we are his witness. The only choice we have is whether we will be good or bad witnesses. Likewise, as followers of Christ, all of us give an apologetic for Christ, whether with our lives or our words or both. We don’t have a choice in that either. The only choice is whether we will offer a good apologetic or bad apologetic for the faith. We at the Worldview Bulletin want to help you be a good apologist. We want to help your life be a good apologetic.

This helps us see that apologetics is not just for the “smart” or “intellectual” or “professional” Christians. All of us are apologists. To be sure, what begins as a simple answer about philosophy, theology, science, or history can quickly become rather technical and difficult. This shouldn’t scare us. We are called to love God with our minds. This doesn’t mean we need to be the next Socrates or Einstein . . .  or Jesus (who as Dallas Willard reminds us is the smartest person ever). No, we just need to be ourselves—and seek and pursue truth to the best of our ability. And we need to be willing to say, “I don’t know” on one hand, and “let me get back to you” on the other. The truth is that there is no objection to Christianity that Christianity can’t handle. Maybe you don’t know what to say, but someone does: I guarantee it.

My challenge: start where you are and begin to learn apologetics. Don’t depend on the professional, but learn from them. Your life is a witness. Your words matter. Would that we all follow Peter’s admonition and be prepared to share with those around us the hope we have in Christ.

David Baggett

When I survey the apologetic scene in this fraught cultural moment, it is exciting to see more and more folks interested in learning the skills and tools to use in personal evangelism and conversations about worldview. What bothers me, though, is the divisive and uncharitable spirit in which it is sometimes done, especially on social media. Not always, of course, but too often the tone is more strident than it ought to be. I know it has almost become a cliché to repeat it, but there is much to this notion that apologetics prescriptively construed is animated less by winning arguments and more by winning people. We simply must learn how to disagree agreeably, argue winsomely, and contend for the truth without being contentious. This is no inauthentic niceness for which I am advocating. It is rather about nonnegotiable biblical priorities of modeling the love of Christ, a gentle spirit, and a quiet kindness that speaks volumes. It is assuredly not about hubris or one-upmanship, zero sum games or scorched-earth strategies—and intrinsically gruff demeanors and curmudgeonly personalities are no excuse.

At the least we have to recognize that our ideological opponents are not our enemies. Quite to the contrary. At the deepest level we are, or at least should be, on their side, rooting for them, praying for them, loving them, even and perhaps especially when it is hard to do so. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but the way some amateur apologists treat their interlocutors—and sadly sometimes prominent Christian leaders ensconced in the culture wars do so as well—gives unbelievers or those on the fence little reason to take them seriously and ample cause to be turned off from such unattractive portrayals of Christianity. We simply must work faithfully and intentionally to close the gap between the beautiful truth we proclaim and our treatment of others, who bear God’s image and for whom Jesus died. The tendentious spirit that so often pervades our political and social context must not be imported into our conversations about Christian faith. Such a toxic environment is unhealthy and eminently dysfunctional, not remotely normative, despite that it practically constitutes the air we breathe anymore. This is a vital time to be deliberately countercultural instead. Rather than exuding animus or veritably dripping with sanctimonious contempt, we must heed the great commandments as we discharge the great commission. The gospel genuinely is gloriously good news, God actually does love everyone, and love really has effected the death of death.

Christopher Reese

“No man is an island,” wrote John Donne, but apologists sometimes—perhaps unwittingly—aspire to be.  I suppose it’s because this is the model we often think of when we think of the successful apologist—the man or woman who built their apologetics empire from scratch and seemingly bootstrapped their way to success. It appears that they do their work without reference to what any other apologist is doing—even if every apologist’s goals are roughly the same. 

I once worked for a large Christian organization that had many different departments.  The president of the organization used to encourage these various parts to work together with the phrase, “Synergy, not silos!”  I think it would be helpful if we as apologists and ministry leaders would adopt this approach and seek to work with other apologists and ministries, rather than existing as silos, side by side one another but rarely, or never, interacting.

In describing how Christians can have a greater impact on our culture and society, I was impressed by this observation by pastor and author Tony Evans:

If we are, as His people, to have a collective impact as kingdom disciples, we will need to set aside personal agendas, organizations, denominations, structures, and the like and come together (i.e., without compromising any of the essentials of the faith) as the body of disciples whom Christ died to procure, and work together in the name of our great God and King. . . . It is time to set our preferences and egos aside and impact our communities as one body of kingdom disciples. (Kingdom Disciples [2008], 226, 227).

Imagine what we could accomplish if we worked together!

---

Subscribe now and receive 50% off the normal rate!

Subscribe to The Worldview Bulletin and receive a master class in worldview training, delivered monthly directly to your inbox. Receive a year’s worth of equipping for the discounted price of only $2.50 per month!