Like it or not, Every Christian is an Apologist

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On one occasion, someone suggested to a friend that we have no need of ‘theology’; we should, instead, merely think and talk about God; my friend replied that ‘theology’ simply means ‘words about God’ – we are all theologians. Likewise, philosophy – we are all philosophers.
Francis Schaeffer put it this way:

“there is a second meaning [of philosophy] that we must not miss if we are going to understand the problem of preaching in the twentieth-century world. For philosophy also means a person’s worldview. In this sense all people are philosophers, for all people have a worldview.”

And Tim Keller wrote, in his book, The Reason for God, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs.” Whenever we doubt, whenever we question, we are philosophers.
This is also true of evangelism and apologetics – we are all evangelists, we are all apologists;  although many wish to distinguish between the two, there is no distinction, for every time we  clarify our beliefs to a sceptic, we are defending it from misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The Apostle Peter wrote, in 1 Peter 3:

 “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 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, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

Here evangelism, apologetics, righteous behaviour and worship are all woven together into one seamless whole – “if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake”;  “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy”; “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone”; “the hope that is in you”; “do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience”; it is how we are called to live.

This, indeed, is the role of the church, and we all have our part to play. 

Unfortunately our time is often wasted: too many Evangelicals engage in endless debate about worship styles (or, more accurately, musical styles), because, we say, we must find ways of attracting people to church so that we might preach the gospel to them. We organise and promote endless programmes to the same end – fashionable attempts to catch the attention of a fashionable fickle world. Some, perhaps, have merit, and some, perhaps, are reached; but sooner or later we must explain what we believe, why we believe it and why unbelievers don’t; and, we must learn to do this on ‘their’ turf, in terms they understand.

Our Evangelical subculture stopped making sense to secularists some time ago. The typical secularist has an understanding of the church built up from snippets of Twitter, internet blogs, references in films, pop-songs and soap operas; to them Christianity is not merely irrelevant, it is unforgivably intolerant. And so we have the painstaking task of explaining and clarifying the Gospel to an alien culture. 

We are, after all, pilgrims in a foreign land; we are, to put it one way, ‘on the wrong side of history’. We must struggle to be understood; we must argue if we are to be given fair hearing. We must be clear, coherent, patient and gracious.

And that is why have apologetics.

Posted in Christian Theology, Quick Thoughts | Tagged , | Comments Off on Like it or not, Every Christian is an Apologist

Around the Web #8: The reliability of the Gospels

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Of course, it is impossible to demonstrate the inerrancy, or even the inspiration, of the Gospels using the methods of history. However, we can present a strong case for the reliability of the Gospels. Even if he cannot bring himself to treat the Gospels as inspired, the sceptic should acknowledge that the Gospels contain good, historical information about the life of Jesus.

NT Wright explains why New Testament scholars are now much more likely to treat the Gospels as good, useful sources for the life of Jesus:

For those seeking to go a little deeper, Richard Bauckham explains why the Gospels were not produced by a process analogous to “Chinese Whispers”

Bauckham has an excellent essay on his research here.

Ben Witherington III explains how the Gospel writers could obtain reliable information about Jesus. ( The Gospels were written within living memory of Jesus, in a culture which prized memorization and oral tradition.) Greg Boyd explains how many details in  the Gospels support their historicity.  For those with extra time, Craig Keener has an excellent essay explaining why we should treat the Gospels as reliable documents.

The Book of Acts also emerges as reliable in Keener’s opinion; this is significant as Luke and Acts had the same author.

Alan Millard points out that writing was more common than we might suppose. Indeed, we need to understand that oral traditions generated written notes as aids and guides, as Greg Boyd explains. Christopher Tuckett points out that the Gospel writers did not simply depend on oral sources, but written sources also. It seems likely that Luke and Matthew quite carefully copied information from Mark (and at least one other source); so the Gospel authors did not treat their sources carelessly.

Finally, Philosopher Tim McGrew has provided a robust and interesting case for the reliability of the Gospels, drawing on modern research and on the writings of older Christian apologists. These lectures repay careful listening.

Posted in Around the Web, Quick Thoughts | Tagged | Comments Off on Around the Web #8: The reliability of the Gospels