Comments on: Open Mic At The iMonk Cafe: A Question About Apologists

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:07:53 +0000

Jesus complex? Think about it. People hated Jesus for what He had to say; therefore the more people hate you, the more Christ-like you become. — Dumb Ox

Which tends to remove any reality check on obnoxious behavior in Witnessing (TM).

I think it’s also because some apologists (and evangelists) mistakenly think it is their job to make people have faith. Still sounds like Jesus complex to me…or maybe the Spanish Inquisition. — Dumb Ox

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!

By: Ed Komoszewski

Ed Komoszewski — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:00:19 +0000

It might surprise some to learn that many of us professional “apologists” view our task as fundamentally pastoral. That is, our primary objective is not to prove a point or win an argument, but rather to remove intellectual and emotional obstacles to initial and continued faith in Christ. This means that we are actively listening to those in pursuit of truth, and trying hard not to answer questions that nobody’s asking. It requires a certain level of transparency and complete authenticity on our parts, allowing glimpses into our doubts and struggles all the while pointing to reasons for unending hope in Christ. In short, we try to exegete people—including ourselves—as well as truth.

In my nearly twenty years of vocational ministry, I’ve learned that most who reject Christianity are reacting to a caricature of it. Their cultural sources of information are slanted and so their perceptions are skewed. Ministering to these folks necessitates a certain level of apologetic skill. I learned that the hard way. Indeed, such experiences are largely responsible for my gradual drift into vocational apologetics.

As Lee Strobel pointed out long ago, unchurched people have genuine questions about Christianity but feel that Christians fail to provide thoughtful answers. This means that our response must be both genuine and thoughtful. Cold arguments won’t get it done. But “keeping it real” has its limits, too.

I fear that many in the post-evangelical landscape are swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. Tired of purely modernistic, argumentative approaches to apologetics, they’ve kicked the discipline itself to the curb. But the answer is, in my humble opinion, balance—not abandonment.

I personally know many men who embody the type of apologetic I’m describing. Guys like Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, and Rob Bowman are patient, caring, and winsome in their approach. Others who are not apologists per se but who have ventured into apologetic waters out of necessity also fall into this category. New Testament scholars Dan Wallace and Darrell Bock, both of whom I’ve known and watched for years, come immediately to mind. They’ve jumped into the frying pan of cultural debate out of deep pastoral concerns. And they’ve engaged people with charity and authenticity the whole time. It would be a shame for men like this to be included in the broad brushstrokes employed in this thread.

By: Apologetically Urs

Apologetically Urs — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:18:28 +0000

IMHO – The Apostle Paul says that we should be ever prepared to explain and defend the Gospel. Just defending the Gospel from a biblical prospective to a world indifferent to God would often be futile at best. As Jesus and Paul the role models to follow, we (as defenders of the faith) must often disprove man’s ‘natural’ wisdom in order to show how things really are from an all but incomprehensible God’s prospective. Paul used the Law (which the Jews understood – especially the Pharisees and Sadducee) That means the arguments we present must seem logical from a ‘natural’ man’s worldview, then we can tell them how their ideology is supported (or unsupported) by biblical truths. Apologetics use scientific logic to create a ‘bridge’ of understanding to those biblical truths, and thus to God’s love and plan of salvation.

By: Bror Erickson

Bror Erickson — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:54:10 +0000

Patrcick,
Now the question was, how is this love? Not, why do you say it? Perhaps I don’t know the same apologists you do. Perhaps Imonk is asking this about a subgroup I have not run into. I don’t know many self-righteous apologists. I know guys that will stand up for truth, and expose false teachers for being fools. But I also know them to be ready to forgive when one repents of false teaching, and ask forgiveness when they have gone too far. And that is what Christ bids us do, to forgive each other, and bear with one another. on the other hand I see you Patrick pointing fingers and calling them self-righteous when I can smell a good amount of that B.S wafting off of you.
I am saying it takes all types to make up the body of Christ, all types of sinners in need of forgiveness.

By: Patrick Lynch

Patrick Lynch — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:03:58 +0000

Confused, my perception of apologists as fat nerds comes from the fact that the kids on the top of the social game in high school (anybody who can bully and not be an outcast) and beyond generally go on to succeed in something material later in life – they don’t engage in Sisyphean theological debate-battles on context-free topics vs. any and all comers as a pastime or a recreation.

Also, jocks reading Calvin’s Institutes? Far-fetched?

Stereotypes are so interesting.

By: Patrick Lynch

Patrick Lynch — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:24 +0000

Bror,

I’m painting a picture, trying to connect the dots between something familiar about humanity (fat nerds with a chip on their shoulder) and a very common flaw among Christians (bellicose self-righteousness). The point being that being literate in Christianity is, of itself, not transforming or vivifying in the least, and in real life, your archetypal fat nerds with poor social skills oftentimes never climb out of that hole, declared Christian faith or no.

“(By the way, Jesus could be pretty merciless in a debate too. He didn’t stand for false teaching. And was willing to grab whips for the zeal that was in him. So perhaps the apologist is Christlike.)”

Remind me never to debate you! I’m not trying to be whipped by anyone for not seeing their point – no matter how they exegete their rationale.

By: Patrick Kyle

Patrick Kyle — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:44:22 +0000

o.h, Patrick Lynch,

Testosterone Poisoning? Two words for you – Ingrid Schleuter. ( you can check her out at Slice of Laodicea)

Another two words for the most strident and hateful of the group in question – mental illness.

By: Confused

Confused — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:53:55 +0000

“And I do believe that R.C. Sproul, one of the more famous apologists out there, actually excelled at football. Not that fat either as I recall.”

Interesting, as I always stereotyped apologists more as aggressive former jock types than how Patrick Lynch depicted them– you know, the ones who went around pushing smaller kids into lockers just because they could.

Yes, I’m totally stereotyping.

By: cey

cey — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:49:04 +0000

Anybody remember Col. Nathan Jessup’s line as he is on the witness stand in “A Few Good Men”?

“you need me on that wall. You WANT me on that wall”

the Church really needs men who think deeply about the issues of faith and scripture. Where does it say that Christians are to always put the cookies on the lowest shelf?

The Puritans were the ones who were pushing education, while everyone else was content with raising slack-jawed yokels with hard bodies and soft minds.

No, we are not to respond to our critics and enemies with vitriol and hatred, but this does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water.

Where would the church be without Augustine, Lewis, Schaeffer, Ravi, Chesterton, Dinesh D. and so many others.

Yes, some do not act in a Christ-like manner, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t need men to think along those lines, or in that manner, or who think deeper than the average Joe Christian.

By: Am

Am — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:33:21 +0000

IM, I think I know what you’re talking about. I think that (Catholic) apologists are “the way they are” because when you have someone who is:
1. intellectual and also
2. a person of faith (which a rational person can be, but which is still “not rational” – it’s something *more*, blessed are they who do not see but believe, etc).
3. and they’re faced with atheists jeering about a magical man in the sky and other Christians jeering about an occasionally magical man in Rome you wind up with someone who
4. is unwilling or personally unable to make an argument from the bottom up like CS Lewis and instead
5. takes the position that if you don’t agree with them lock stock and barrel… well, you must be a stupid baby who doesn’t understand anything and, oh, you think you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas?

(as a cradle catholic, that’s my experience).