Apologetics vs. Evangelism
Posted by RyftMar 2
The following question was sent by email to the staff here at the Aristophrenium, and since it raised such a good and important question, we asked asked for, and received, permission to reproduce it for the benefit of other visitors. Although the original email is paraphrased, the response is nearly verbatim.
I’ve felt what seems like a calling to get into Christian apologetics, for which a competent grasp of logical reasoning and good debate skills are needed. But there is one thing that bothers me a little.
After observing relevant discussions online, such as on forums, I noticed that it can be rather easy to allow debating skills to take over, rather than allow for the Holy Spirit to work through me. This is something I have seen not only in myself but also other Christians. Now, I realize that such discussions might not lead someone to repent and believe, so for that reason I find myself thinking I should rather rely on God’s guidance than my ability to sustain a strong argument in a debate.
My question for you is, “What is your experience on this issue?” That is, how do you keep from going into debate mode, as it were, keeping the focus on God and his Word? Surely it is not about relying on mental acuity, like having a better grasp of logic than someone else—or in some cases being the one whose back is against the wall because their line of reasoning forced me there. How do we engage on God’s Word rather than man’s mental sparring?
I guess things will differ from person to person. From one of Paul’s letters it seems like there was a time once when “Jesus loves you” was the only thing needed, really. We live in such different times now.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. The staff at the Aristophrenium welcome and appreciate genuine feedback from our visitors.
As I read your email, I detected two separate concerns being expressed as a singular one; and given the nature of those two concerns, I can tell you that it is common for people to conflate them. There is the issue of proclaiming the gospel (evangelization) on the one hand, and defending the gospel (apologetics) on the other. In both respects you are correct to speak about the need for the Holy Spirit to guide us through the efforts. But sometimes when evangelizing there arises a need for apologetics, where the latter is used for removing obstacles against the former. In developed countries, like in North America and Australia, evangelization and apologetics typically go together, leading to the tendency of conflating them.
When it comes to deciding between proclaiming or defending the gospel, or doing both but emphasizing one over the other, the circumstance typically dictates the need. In all cases the Holy Spirit is at work, but (a) sometimes you might be part of the front line effort, so your energies go into defending the gospel, (b) while sometimes much of that front line work has already been done before you, so your energies can be invested in proclaiming the gospel. Both when and where you are called, and into what sort of circumstances, all depends on the sort of work the Holy Spirit has gifted you to do, for there are as many circumstances as gifts suited to meet them. Some are gifted with teaching, some with healing, some with wisdom, etc. As the apostle Paul said, the foot is no less important than the eye, nor should the ear despair being just an ear. We are the body of Christ and God has arranged us, as parts of that body, exactly as he wanted. The body is one, though it has many parts.
Whether or not one should develop critical thinking skills, such as understanding logic and common fallacies in reasoning, will depend on the area to which God has called the person. I would be inclined to think that if you feel a pull toward that direction then it may very well be that God has deemed it an essential component to your individual ministry. But try to keep in mind one fundamentally important thing: never divorce the power of philosophical instruments from the God in whom their authority is found (e.g., the very intelligibility of logic is grounded in the God of the Bible). We reason properly only when it is consistent with his divine revelations, whether knowingly as believers or intuitively as unbelievers.
When it comes to defending the truth of the gospel against those who would attack it, one of the operating principles at the Aristophrenium is 2 Corinthians 10:5, that those who belong to the living God demolish strongholds only by divine power. “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” There is no truth but that which belongs to the knowledge of God; that is, if we hold a strong argument in a debate, it is only by the Word of God for the glory of his holy name. As for the strength or effectiveness of our arguments, it is never by reasoning or wisdom apart from God. He is the final point of predication in all things, so that in all argumentation we strive to operate by three inseparable principles: the truth of God as our beginning, the Word of God as our means, and glorifying God as our end.
And finally, with regard to demolishing arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, there are times when it is helpful to assume for the sake of argument your opponent’s particular view. In apologetics this is known as the ‘presuppositional’ method, where we assume the opponent’s view in order to show that it fails under its own terms. Although we know their view is false (because it defies the sovereign authority of God), they don’t acknowledge their view is false; so we grant their view for the sake of argument to show how, under its own terms, it completely falls apart. That is why we say the only truth is that which belongs to the knowledge of God, because every view otherwise contrary fails to sustain itself. Only the truth of God stands forever. And once we’ve shown that their view falls apart under its own terms, while the truth of God stands firm under its own terms (this is apologetics), we confront a unique opportunity—right then or later, by God’s will—to present the message of the gospel (this is evangelization). So there is no trick to it, no superior worldly wisdom. Apart from God, the world has no wisdom. From start to finish it was the truth of God through his Word to the glory his name.
How does one keep that sort of spiritual mentality in their confrontations in the world? There is no way other than a life of prayer and study of the holy Scriptures. The deeper one cultivates their relationship with God and knowledge of him, the greater that God blesses their giftedness in the field to which he has called them. The more you rely on God, the greater he empowers you as an instrument of the gospel and the truth that is in him. Read the Bible constantly, pray always, and seek to glorify God in all things.
And realize that whether or not someone accepts Christ has nothing to do with you. One plants, another waters, but it is God who makes it grow, for the power of the gospel (whether by evangelization or apologetics) resides not in your words but in the Holy Spirit. You could give a terrible presentation of the gospel and have someone repent and believe; or you could give the best presentation of the gospel that this world has ever seen and have someone reject it and walk away. Among the Jews and God-fearing Greeks at the Areopagus, only a few followed Paul and believed. And try to remember that there are times when, in your apologetics efforts, God may choose to place you in a circumstance not so much for the sake of your opponent as for the sake of those who are witnessing the encounter; it may be that there is a believer whose weakened faith is strengthened by the defense of God’s truth that she heard you present.
Once again, thank you for writing to us with your feedback. I pray that this response has spoken to your concerns.
In the name of Christ our peace,
The Aristostaff




13 comments
Comment by Mathew on 2 Mar 2010 at 20:57
Apologetics315 publish a post just last week on why Christians should look into apologetics: A Case for Apologetics by Brian Auten.
I've had a quick skim of the PDF transcript (there's also an MP3 file) and it looks like a great resource to help those who aren't sure about apologetics to at least take a look into some of the reasons why they should.
Comment by Duane on 4 Mar 2010 at 17:06
I suppose I should contribute something here also.
Another site that I use from time to time is BiblicalTraing.Org. It's not in my blogroll links because it's not a blog, but as the title suggests, it is a website devoted to educating and training Christians over a wide range of areas. [Perhaps we should create a separate list for sites like this?]
They have a massive amount of free content aimed at varying levels of study. One of the classes by the late Dr. Ron Nash is on apologetics.
Note: You have to register to get access to the downloads, but many of the courses come withy prepared outlines that you can print and use to follow along and make your own notes.
Comment by Mathew on 8 Mar 2010 at 01:49
Following is a great blog post from Brett Kunkle over at the Stand to Reason blog; this blog post provides a compelling, real-life illustration as to why Christians ought to ground their faith in objective, historically founded reasons and not to strictly rely on their own experiential feelings of faith.
In particular, I thought these two paragraphs are especially relevant to the questions raised by the inquirer to whom Ryft address his post above:
Our Christianity is a historical, factually based and reasoned faith. It is not sustained by subjective, spiritual experiences. While the Apostle Paul's encounter with the Lord Jesus could be termed just such a subjective, spiritual experience, we know by his letters that he also taught a faith rooted in fact. In 1Cor 15:3-6, Paul opens himself to factual correction for his belief that Jesus had risen from the dead:
In other words, if you don't believe Paul's account of the risen Christ, just go and ask any number of the five hundred to verify his story.
Personal, spiritual experience is never enough when attempting to provide a credible account for others to accept.
Comment by Rene Mulder on 9 Mar 2010 at 04:48
Good post indeed :)
Still, the die-hard disbeliever would always reject those historical facts. You can always weasel your way out of that and saying “we didn't know then, what we know today”. Or…”if the bible is not the truth, they could have easily lied about those 500 witnesses as well”
It's poor reasoning, but that's what I hear anyway. :S
Comment by Mathew on 9 Mar 2010 at 18:17
Die-hard disbelievers may very well reject that – and if they do then the question to ask them is, 'Why?' On what basis do they discount this type of witness account?
… and then there's a whole host of other questions that will follow on from them answering those, down the rabbit trail, through the woods until – at last – we should reach the real reasons why they object to such testimony.
And then the decision is up to them. This approach is called leaving a pebble in their shoe. That's what apologetics is all about.
Pingback by If you plant it, it might grow |:| The Aristophrenium on 11 Apr 2010 at 20:12
[...] at the beginning of March I published a response to an email we had received about apologetics and evangelism, the interplay between them and how to avoid neglecting one in favour of the other. To expand a [...]
Comment by Mathew on 27 May 2010 at 00:48
Here's a great quote published over on at one of Ryft's favorite blogs, Choosing Hats:
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 28 May 2010 at 09:10
“Die-hard disbelievers may very well reject that – and if they do then the question to ask them is, 'Why?' On what basis do they discount this type of witness account?”
On the fact that you claim 500 people saw a person back to life from death, with no independent verification to back it up. The bible saying that something happened isn't necessarily “historical” by any measure.
In addition, even if 500 people did claim to see someone rise from the dead, that would not make it true. Testimony of a supernatural act of any sort would not lend to its truth value, especially one that allegedly happened nearly 2 millennia ago. How many people have claimed to be abducted by aliens? Does their testimony somehow trump those who say there isn't enough evidence to support their theory because they are in large numbers?
“… and then there's a whole host of other questions that will follow on from them answering those, down the rabbit trail, through the woods until – at last – we should reach the real reasons why they object to such testimony.”
I just told you the real reason I object to the testimony. An appeal to the popularity of something – therefore that something is true is a logical fallacy. It's nonsense.
“And then the decision is up to them. This approach is called leaving a pebble in their shoe. That's what apologetics is all about.”
What decision is up to me? Whether I want to accept a logically fallacious argument or not?
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 30 May 2010 at 04:01
Taking our cue from Hernandez, the reason that such accounts are dismissed is because they are not historical, for nothing is historical unless it is backed up by independent verification. Of course, we are not told how independent verification of an historical account is done, nor what it means to verify an historical account independently in the first place. But such issues are precisely what Mathew was getting at when he referred to the wonderland such rabbit holes lead to when pressed to their logical ends.
Although Hernandez tried to dismiss the whole thing for being fallacious, it would seem he fails to recognize that it was his straw man that committed the error; i.e., in a twist of delightful irony, his fallacy committed that fallacy. Since it is evident that nobody tried to argue that “X is true because lots of people believe it,” we may clearly see that it was a straw man of his own construction. Hernandez accurately identified a fallacy, but it was his straw man that committed it. Just so that the issue clear for the readers, neither Mathew nor anyone else said that testimony is a truth-maker. It was described as a truth-bearer. There is a very important difference between the two.
Comment by Mathew on 30 May 2010 at 08:33
That the bible saying that something happened does not make it true – nor does a multitude of people affirming the same thing – is correct. Fortunately, no one was proposing such a thing here so you'd do well to go beat up your straw-man some place else. Conversely, the same can be said of the length of time – that something happened two thousand years ago does not make it false nor any less truthful or reliable. It could very well be true and it can be reasonably credible.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 30 May 2010 at 10:10
Go Mathew!
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 2 Jun 2010 at 03:20
Me = Tavarish, I'm just linked as my facebook profile for some reason.
Anyway, here we go.
1. Referring to something occurring as “historical fact”, as Rene put it, is making a claim that these things actually occurred. This requires empirical evidence.
2. Saying things like:
“That the bible saying that something happened does not make it true – nor does a multitude of people affirming the same thing – is correct. Fortunately, no one was proposing such a thing here so you'd do well to go beat up your straw-man some place else.” doesn't look good when you started off with this:
“In other words, if you don't believe Paul's account of the risen Christ, just go and ask any number of the five hundred to verify his story.”
This is you – interpreting the Bible to be “rooted in fact”, making the case that a call to testimony is somehow telling of the truth of an event, then saying that testimony is irrelevant.
Straw man? Don't be ridiculous. I made the case that you haven't provided evidence for the Bible's truth, and the argument still stands. Quoting the Bible doesn't help in establishing its merit, neither does constructing caricatures of conversations with non-believers in which you leave intellectual pebbles and reach predetermined conclusions.
Yes, conversely it doesn't mean that it was necessarily false, but if you're going down that route, you'd be missing a very interesting bedfellow named burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have the responsibility to demonstrate its truth.
Comment by Mathew on 3 Jun 2010 at 03:20
Your view, that nothing is an historical fact unless it can be empirically verified is, while an interesting diversion of the subject at hand, just that: your view. One's views does little to address the arguments or merits of the claims of Christianity – rather, as Ryft would say, they simply introduce one's own irrelevant biographical detail into the mix.
What we have expressed thus far is not that witness testimony is a truth-maker – we'd have a markedly different court system if it were! – but only a truth-bearer. In other words, what a witness says can relate something true, but the utterance is not what makes it true. In this light, I think you're grasping at straws to think I have said that testimony is irrelevant.
On one thing I do admit: I have not provided evidence for the truth of the Bible. But then, there's a good reason for that: the Bible's truth was never the point of the discussion. For you to demand such evidence, then, is another point of irrelevancy other than to make clear that you don't accept what the Bible claims. To which my only response is that the garnering of your intellectual assent was far from the purpose of this topic.