Posts Tagged apologetics

PURPOSE DRIVEN APOLOGETICS

I have spoken before about how I feel a calling to apologetics, and how vital I think it is to the Church. But, as with everything we do sometimes it is healthy to take a step back ask ourselves the hard questions. Why do we do the things we do? Are we going about it the right way? Is it the best use of our time and talents? Is it because we want to do it, or because we believe that it is what God wants?

Often, in our arrogance, we assume that in the modern church that we are breaking new ground and conquering new territory that those before us could scarcely have imagined. But, as a wise man once said, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Many of the controversies that we encounter or the battles that we fight are merely continuations of things that have gone before, and will come again. Many of the cults and movements on the fringe of the church are old heresies rebadged for modern times. Nor is our embrace of new technology anything special, in fact the church finds itself lagging behind, when previously it was at the forefront of change (Gutenberg is a classic example. Imagine if the first use of the internet had been in God’s name or if the first blog was a Godblogger).

Even as apologists, we often find that the arguments we use and are so proud of, have been used many times in the past. Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. So, in many cases, when we act as if we are seeing something new, we are really just ignoring the rich heritage of the Church. And when we think we are fighting battles that have never been fought before, we are really standing on an age old battlefield where many have stood before. However, I honestly believe that, despite the fact that far better men and women than I have already fought these battles, there is still a burning need for us to continue to fight them. Despite all the recurring themes, we are are in a new situation, because of the audience we are trying to reach and the way that the environment in which we find ourselves has changed. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

THE APOLOGIST’S CREED

Ever since I became a Christian I have loved to discuss and debate the many beliefs and doctrines of Christian faith. As I progressed in my own spiritual journey, I began to see the need for a reasoned defense of Christianity in a world that is increasingly hostile to the Gospel, and so I, as many do, tried my hand at apologetics. Like most of us, I have my ups and downs, my successes and failures. But all throughout this time, there has been one verse of Scripture that has both inspired and convicted me, and has been the guiding impulse of my apologetics ministry. It is an extremely well known verse, and I think if apologists had a creed, this would be it. Surprisingly, it does not come from the great apologist Paul but from the man that Jesus called His Rock.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

1 Peter 15-16

There are three lessons to be drawn from this that aid us in our mission to serve God as apologists, and I wanted to briefly examine each of them.

1. But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.

It seems pretty obvious that to be an effective apologist, you need to be a Christian yourself. However, I think that this goes a little deeper than that. The first part is that if you are going to go out and engage in debate about Christianity, and come into contact with other creeds and philosophies we need to make sure that our faith is deeply rooted and strong. There have been times when I have been struggling in my Christian walk where I have decided to take a step back from apologetics until I get things sorted out for myself. There is no one more unconvincing than someone who is unconvinced himself.

But, this verse (to me at least) is talking about more than just that. If we are to be successful apologists we need to ensure that in every debate we are in, in every piece we write that we are submissive to the primacy of God. It may just me, but I often find that there is a temptation to rely too much upon my own intellect (such as it is) and to try and do apologetics under my own power. But, I know that there is no point in me looking at a subject and trying to apply my common sense or preconceptions to it and then try and pass it off as what God has to say about it. Not only is that arrogant and presumptuous, it ignores the fact that I am a flawed and imperfect human and more likely than not to get things wrong.

We need to be aware that no matter how brilliantly reasoned and constructed an argument we set forth, if it not underpinned by what God has to say on the subject it is worse than useless and does the Kingdom no good. Apologetics is not about us. It is not about how clever we are, or how many sceptics we can confound, but about God and what He has to say on a subject. And how do we know what God has to say? We need to go to His word, to the Bible.

So, the first key to apologetics is putting God and His Word first, and submitting our intellect to Him.

2. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

When I was, briefly, a Scout the motto was “Be Prepared” and that is a motto that apologists could do well to take for themselves. One of the romantic images that we often like to apply to apologetics is of a knight going off to battle. It is, after all, a spiritual conflict that we find ourselves in, so perhaps that is not so far off the mark. But, we have to remember that in a real battle a knight who went off to war without the proper preparation would soon find himself minus a few essential parts of his anatomy. For every few minutes spent in the heat of combat there were hours of training, on learning to wield the weapons with which he was equipped and honing the knightly skills which were all that stood between him and ignominious death.

While none of us are facing death, at least not in the Western world, the stakes we are fighting for are far higher than a few acres of dirt, and may have a bearing on the eternal fate of others. Surely, then, it behooves us to prepare ourselves just like any knight, and take it as seriously? As apologists I believe that we need to spend time ensuring that we are always prepared.

There are numerous ways that we can ensure that this is the case. The first and foremost is to become as familiar as possible with our chief weapon, the Word of God. We need to always reading our Bible, trying to understand it more and more everyday. By its very nature, it is not like any other book where it is static and limited in the knowledge it can impart. If we are Spirit filled, every time we read it God will show us something new. I don’t know how many times I have read a verse that I believed I knew backwards only to find another meaning in it that I had never seen! There is also much to be said for studying those who have gone before. It is such a true statement that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and we are fools if we believe that we are in this alone. When we run into a difficult argument, the chances are that a hundred Christians have written on it before. That doesn’t mean that we can’t add something to the debate, but it means that we have a starting point.

We also need to make sure that we are constantly seeking to improve our knowledge and learning. There is no point in us seeking to debate on a topic if we don’t know anything about it. How can I, for example, try and engage someone on evolutionary theory and apply Biblical teaching to it if I know nothing about it? You can’t do it, and you only make a fool of yourself if you try. So, in that case it would be worth reading up on it, and making sure that you were coming from an informed position, That doesn’t mean you agree with it, just that you know its weaknesses and where to start from.

We need to be people of prayer, constantly asking God to give us the right words and the right timing to be effective, and also to open the hearts of those we are debating. Again, if we try and rely on our own strength and don’t ask God for help, we will fail.

Finally, we also need to be constantly honing our skills. Like a would-be author, write, write and write some more. Talk and debate with other Christians. Like a knight training with his fellows, spend time working out what areas you need to work on in a friendly environment before you go out to battle where those weaknesses will be seized upon and used against you.

3. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

It is a sad fact that we often confuse gentleness with weakness and respect with agreement. But as apologists, these are qualities which we need to cultivate we if want to be effective in carrying out God’s mission.

Because of the nature of the subjects we are discussing, it not unusual for debates to be passionate, or to even get heated at times. Now, there is nothing wrong with a bit of passion, in fact I think that it is required. But, we shouldn’t let it blind us and blunt the effectiveness of our witness. If a debate degenerates into a slanging match it isn’t going to achieve anything, because you can’t have dialogue in that case. Sometimes I find it very hard to maintain my temper in the face of certain arguments, especially those that are derogatory towards the one I love above all, Jesus Christ. But, I find that by remaining calm I can be far more effective than when I let my temper run away with me, as I often get drawn into statements that, on consideration, I would not have made. And, as Proverbs 15:1 says, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” Sometimes, the easiest way to defuse an argument that is distracting from the real point or to calm someone down to the point where dialogue can resume is to simply not give any reason for offence, and to end it before it can escalate. It doesn’t mean agreeing, but just being “gentle”. You don’t have to meet an angry word with an angry response, in fact if you don’t you take the wind out of their sails more effectively than any pithy comment might do because it is hard to keep abusing someone who simply won’t retaliate.

As I do in my day-to-day life, when engaging in debate I try (and I stress “try” because too often I fall short) to be obedient to the Golden Rule. I try and put myself in the shoes of my opponent and try and see where they are coming from. For example, it really frustrates me when people assume that because I am a Christian I haven’t thought out my beliefs and they are devoid of reason. So, I always try and operate under the assumption that my opponent believes what they believe in good faith having thought it through and assessed the facts. Because I don’t like it when people attack me instead of my arguments, I try not to engage in ad hominem attacks. And so on, there are many examples of what I mean and I am sure that you can think of some. You would be surprised how effective the Golden Rule is in any human interaction, and apologetics is no exception.

We need to understand that the person we are debating is not our enemy, and we are actually doing this for their benefit. If we lose sight of that, we are wasting our time. I don’t get involved in debates with people because it is going to get me into Heaven, I do it because I believe that they, or the people who are influenced by them are missing out on something because of their mistaken beliefs and I want them to experience the same joy and abundance of life that I do. I am not so arrogant that I believe that I can cause anyone to be saved, but any small part I can play in breaking down the barriers against Christian belief is worthwhile. It may be by answering and individual’s objections, or combating certain philosophies, the thing is I will never know what seeds I might plant. But, when I lose sight of why I am doing it and stop loving those I debate then I may as well give it away.

Apologists also need to ensure that they are above reproach and that they can always have a clear conscience about the way that they go about it. We need to hold ourselves to far higher standards than others do, and never fall into the trap of believing that the end justifies any method. There seems to be an entrenched attitude amongst certain Christians that if we are doing things for God, then all things are permissible. A classic example is the countless emails that use stories and situations to prove a point or discredit non-Christian arguments. I shudder whenever I receive one that a few moments research would have shown to be false but is still passed off as true. There is nothing wrong with an illustration to prove a point, but there is no excuse for falsehood whether deliberate or through laziness, especially for those of us online who have the luxury of Google or Wikipedia or a thousand other sources that apologists of days past would have killed for. If Christianity is true, it shouldn’t require lies on its behalf, the truth should be more than enough.

Nor should we think that because we do what we do for love not money, that we don’t have to meet the same standards that we expect from the professionals. When we take shortcuts or don’t research or indulge in ad hominem attacks, not only do we discredit ourselves, but we make it that much harder for the next Christian who comes along, who then has to work that much harder to undo the damage. But, if we are above reproach not only do we force our opponents to focus on our arguments as they have nothing about us to grab a hold of, when they do make blanket statements about Christians it discredits them in the eyes of those observing who are often the ones we are most likely to reach. And, aside from all that, if we are offering something to God as our gift to Him, shouldn’t we be endeavouring to give him our best, not just what we can be bothered with?

I could go on for much longer about this one passage of Scripture, but if you have stuck with me this far I won’t ask anymore of your patience. I don’t always live up to the standards I have found in the Apologist’s Creed, nor do I claim to be a great apologist (or even a good one), but I have found the things I have talked about useful to me, and I hope that they will be to you as well. I would welcome any feedback from other apologists, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Tags: , ,

Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?
Euthyphro: Certainly.
Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.
Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

Euthyphro – Plato

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

Bertrand Russell –Why I am not a Christian

As Christians one of the dilemmas we face when talking about right and wrong and God’s commandments is this. Is something good (and I will use this word to symbolise the same as right for the purposes of this post) because God says it is, or does God uphold it because it is good? This may not seem like a dilemma until you follow the argument through to its conclusion. If it is the first case, morality simply becomes a matter of God’s whim. God could have just as easily said that hate was more desirable than love than the other way round. In the second, it creates a source of morality outside of God, something which is antithetical to Christian belief. This is often raised as an argument against the idea of an objective morality emanating from God, but I don’t think it creates such a problem as first thought. There are two main points that I think rob this argument of some of its sting.

1) The Character of God

The first objection raised is that if things are only good because God has said they are, God can say anything is good which removes any real difference between right and wrong. It would seem to make these definitions merely semantics. I don’t think this is necessarily the case. In my opinion, the goodness of things derives not from any word of God, but from the essential character of God that Christians believe is revealed in the Bible. Truth is a virtue because truth is one of the attributes of God. Love is good because God is love incarnate. The list goes on. This means that the commandments that God has given us are not some sort of whim that can change tomorrow, and again the next day. God would not do that, because to do that would be to deny His very nature. God tells us that things are good not because of some external influence telling him that they are so, or because by naming them so He creates them as such meaning that if He wanted good could be bad or bad good, but because of the relation they have to His person, either good in that they reflect His nature, or bad because they oppose it.

2) Trust in God

The next problem we run into is that if morality were dependent on God’s whim (but as I have shown above I believe no such thing) what is to stop God turning around and telling us what was once good is now bad or vice versa? A very intelligent atheist once asked me what would I do if God told me to kill my neighbour? Would I obey because if God commanded it, it must be moral? The question was quite a good one, I must admit. Think about it for a second. If God is the source of goodness, anything He wants can be good. Instead of the truth, lies might become desirable to Him. How can we, as Christians, have faith that God will remain consistent in what He desires of us? There are, I think, two answers to this. The first is a repeat of the first point I raised. God will not deny Himself. If something is good, it is good because it is reflection of His character. We no more need to worry about God changing His definition of good than we do water suddenly being dry. Secondly, we have God’s promises to rely on. God could have simply told us to obey Him without any ability to think about how He interacts wth us, not offering any justification or assurances in return, or even any certainities. This would have been well within His rights. If this was so, at anytime God could tell us to (insert appalling action here) our neighbour and we would have to do it, no matter how much the very morality God had instilled in us rebelled against us. But instead, our gracious God has made His faithfulness to His promises the basis of His interaction with us. God has entered into a covenant and has told us that His faithfulness is a condition of that. We know that we can trust Him and His revelation of His character to us because He has made His truthfulness the way which we were to know Him. We don’t have to worry about God telling us that suddenly everything has changed, that we cannot rely on the immutability of His word, because God has made (not from any obligation to us but because of His love and desire to give us a rock to build our faith upon) His integrity the foundation upon which His law rests.

It is a complex issue, and I don’t know whether I have made it very clear so I would appreciate any comments on it that you feel like making. But I am confident that Eutyphro’s dilemma cannot be used as a way of discrediting the idea of God being a reliable source of morality.

Tags: , , , , ,

Virtuous Pagans

Anyone who has spent time on the Net debating Christianity with people who do not believe will know that there are certain arguments that will inevitably come up. The historicity of Jesus, the problem of suffering, Free Will vs God’s omniscience, Science vs Religion and so forth. One that I have encountered many times, and the result of genuine inquiry as much as attack, is as follows:

If faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, what happens to those who never had a chance to hear about Him, due either to geographical location or being born before Him?

There have been several suggested answers to this question. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,