Recently, Willow Creek Church offered a public lament that today’s
generation of Evangelical Christians has ignored apologetics (the intellectual
and moral defense of Christianity).
This was music to
my ears, as I (and other apologists) have been concerned about a Post-Modern trend
for years. Ravi Zarharias put it best, quite some time ago. He said, “We have
not taught our people how to defend this!”
By this, he meant the Gospel. To say that the Gospel is frequently attacked in every direction by today’s
culture, from our schools, to our media, to the blogosphere, is the
understatement of the century. An apologist is merely one who defends the
Gospel.
Although this has
been a problem for years with the church at large, one arena, which used to
include apologetics as a vital part of its work, was the campus ministry.
Unfortunately, much has changed. I saw it coming back in the mid-nineties when
I attended a campus ministry conference in Atlanta, Georgia. In one of the seminars, the instructor
said that apologetics were irrelevant today because we were reaching out to a
Post-Modern world. By that, he meant that moral relativism was making it
difficult to talk about values without sounding dogmatic and old fashioned. He
also meant that rational, linear thoughts were looked down upon and people were
more concerned with emotion. The best way to share the gospel was through
personal stories about our experiences with God. Having graduated San Jose State as a Drama Major, and being one who
performs one-man plays all over the country, I certainly see the value of
stories. Even when I teach, I load the lecture with stories because the
academic style can often be boring. And so, I have no disagreement with any
challenge about the mode of the message. As for our own testimony being more important
than a long discussion about Bible manuscripts, again, I totally agree. Any
other apologist would also agree. Contrary to popular opinion, apologists are
not people who think we can “argue” souls into the Kingdom. We are very aware
that unless the Holy Spirit does a work in somebody’s heart, nothing we say
will make any difference. As one who
does all kinds of evangelism, I have always taught that apologetics are a small
part of the pie. My very first Evangelism Training Class asks the students to
write out and memorize their own testimony. By testimony, I do not mean how one
got saved, although that can certainly be included. Primarily, a testimony is a
description of what God is doing in our lives NOW, TODAY, to remind us that He is real.
Apologists are
specialists. They understand that their work is only one of many key ministries.
The purpose of this article is not to argue that apologetics is more important
than anything else. Instead, I am responding to the assertion that apologetics
have become irrelevant.
Never has
Christianity been hated, ridiculed, dissected and “disproved” in the college
classroom more than today. Apologetics are merely the other side of the story.
With all due respect, such a response has never been more relevant.
When
a seeking undergrad wants to get close to God, the worst thing he can do is
take a Religious Studies class. In a typical Religious Studies class, the
professor says on orientation day, “In this class we will not critique
religions. We will merely study what they teach and allow them to speak for
themselves.”
What
he means is that he is not going to critique any religion but Christianity.
The
professor continues. “In this class we are going to learn to respect all
religions.”
What
he means, is that you are going to learn to respect all religions except
Christianity. On the day you study Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or even
some religion about aliens being hatched from space pods, you will learn about
how beautiful the religion is. On the day you study Christianity, you
will learn that the Bible is a chauvinistic book and a racist book. It promotes
genocide and slavery. The Bible is also full of contradictions. Oh yes,
and the Bible has been rewritten and mistranslated. If any Christian dares to
argue with the professor and defend the Gospel, he’ll hear, “Whoa…Buddy. Back
off…Separation between church and state. You’re not allowed to preach in here.”
Funny
how this separation never cuts both ways. People can say any vile thing they
want about Christianity, but we Christians dare not defend ourselves. See
how it works?
But
these discussions are not limited to Religious Studies. God's good name is slandered in, Science, Philosophy,
Humanities…you name it! Christianity is being torn to shreds!
Without
minimizing the love and gentleness of campus Christian clubs who still quietly
lead individuals to Christ, our universities, as institutions, have been
virtually abandoned because people are simply unwilling to take on the
administrations or instructors. We are unwilling to stand against the very
philosophy of the university. We must weigh the influence of an on-campus
Christian fellowship against the barrage of teaching students are hearing day in
and day out from their professors. Why
do most of our Christian teachers with the same credentials teach at private
schools or Bible colleges? Why have things become so polarized? How is this
building the Kingdom of God
in any long lasting, substantial way? Is
it not part of our goal to transform institutions? If the answer to these
questions is that apologetics have become irrelevant, then allow me to ask, “What
exactly is the alternative plan to take back our universities?” Maybe there is
no such plan. Oh sure, we can put a few drowning souls on our life raft, but the
boat itself? I guess we’ll just let it sink.
Apologetics first
became a word associated with Christianity during the Second Century. Early
church leaders verified Christianity in the face of Roman persecution,
attempting to ward off certain accusations or misunderstandings and in doing so,
made the term apologist a popular
one. They not only defended Christianity academically, they also defended
Christianity morally. Of course, the only morality Roman authorities cared
about was the security of the Roman Empire. It was the
task of early Christian apologists to assure the emperors and governors that
the Gospel of Jesus posed no threat to Rome.
But they also pointed to the plain truth of the event. The resurrection of
Jesus was verified history and recent history at that. One could check the
report of Pontius Pilate in the imperial archives and find all the detail and
verification they wanted.
For example, Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist,
made clear reference to a document called the Acts of Pilate in a letter addressed to the Roman Emperor, Antoninus
Pius in AD 150. Describing in detail the
passion of Jesus he writes:
"And the expression “They pierced my hands and feet,” was
used in reference to the nails of the cross, which were fixed in His hands and
feet. And after He was crucified, they
cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among
them. And that these things did happen,
you can ascertain from the ‘Acts of Pontius Pilate’ "(First Apology 35:7-9, translation from Rev. Alexander Roberts D.D.
and James Donaldson LL.D editors, The
Anti Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, WM B. Eerdman Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, p. 174-75).
Justin went on to list many of Jesus’ miracles, such as the
healing of the blind and the lepers. He also credits Jesus with raising people
from the dead. This description of
Jesus’ deeds is concluded with the following words:
"And that He did those things, you can learn from the ‘Acts
of Pilate’ " (First Apology 48:3, Ibid.
p. 179).
Justin
assumed that this record still existed in the official Roman archives and that
Antoninus Pius could verify the facts easily.
Justin’s whole purpose in writing his letter was to obtain mercy from
the highest official in the known world, thus sparing the Christian community a
persecution, which was becoming so commonplace.
It is unlikely that Justin would ask a Roman Emperor to check a document
if he did not feel extremely confident that the document existed. Otherwise, he would be foolishly putting his
own life and reputation at risk.
Today,
we have the same task, to defend Christianity morally and intellectually.
The field of Apologetics is not just about dusty
archaeology and museum housed papyrus. When somebody asks how a loving
God
could send somebody to hell, they are asking for apologetics. When your
friend
wants to know why Jesus is the only way to God, as opposed to some other
sincere
religion, he or she is asking for apologetics. How will God judge the
people
who never heard or Jesus? Why did the God of the Old Testament command
war?
Isn’t He a God of peace? And isn’t the Bible kind of chauvinistic and
behind
the times? Why does the Bible say that pre-marital sex is a
sin? Why does the Bible teach homosexuality is a sin? Didn't God
create homosexuals just the way they are? Doesn't God want
everyone to be happy? Such questions not only ask
for apologetics, they scream out for them! Whenever I do a debate on a
college campus, the place is packed. Just a few years ago at ASU, we had
to seat 600, (200 on the floor) in a room that only held 400, and turn another
150 away at the door! Why? Because even though debates were the original
purpose of universities, they are seldom done today and when they happen,
students eat them up with a spoon.
Allow
me to offer a few obvious but important reasons why apologetics are still
relevant today:
1)
Apologetics are commanded in scripture.
1
Peter 3:12
“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,”
The
word for answer in Greek is apologia. And so, to begin this
discussion with the simplest foundation possible, one who claims that the
subject of apologetics is irrelevant, is claiming that a command from Scripture
is irrelevant.
Often, Christians view debate as something either too cerebral or too
confrontational. I remind you that Jesus debated with Pharisees all the time. In
fact, if we removed such conversations from the Bible, our Gospels would be very
brief. In Acts, we also read about a man named, Apollos:
Acts
18:28
“For
he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures
that Jesus was the Christ. “
And let us not forget the very first Christian
martyr, Stephen, who was stoned to death for being too
persuasive during a debate. Was this some cerebral, fleshly,
unspiritual skill? On the contrary, we are told that his wisdom came
from the Holy
Spirit ( Acts 7).
2)
A serious message needs a serious defense.
It
is unfair to preach a message as life changing as the Gospel without
verification. Think about it. We are literally telling people that they
will
end up in hell for all of eternity if they do not accept Jesus Christ
as their Savior and Lord. Nobody wants to end up in hell. At the same
time, nobody wants
to dedicate his or her life to a fantasy or a waste of time. People
have a
right to ask the very understandable question, “How do I know this to
be true?
You have asked me for a life commitment and painted a horrific picture
of what will happen if I refuse. Please convince me that I am
committing myself to something real!”
At
this point, the smiley Christian replies, “You must accept it on faith.”
Do
you see why atheists have a heyday with Christianity? Why should people follow something that is
not true? In most of my formal debates, the opponent begins by talking about
the ridiculousness of blind faith. It is only when I define faith
differently, that the discussion changes.
When they talk about other disciplines, (history, science,
math, politics), people are very interested in facts. But religion?
That’s a whole different story.
This common approach may be understandable. Many religions
do not offer facts. Even when we read the New Testament, (which
does offer them), we tend to look at passages about faith with a
contemporary
understanding. People mistakenly
conclude that the Bible is asking us to fry our brains. They
define a Christian as one who says, “I have no idea whether or
not Jesus exists,
but, Hey, I know, I’ll just live my life as if He does and when I die,
if it
turns out that by chance I was right, God will reward me for having
been so
gullible and stupid.” Faith is generally
perceived as a blind leap in the dark; the naïve acceptance of an
unsubstantiated teaching. Supposedly
God is fond of those who worship Him apart from any shred of data.
This popular description of faith is light years from the
Biblical definition. Actually, faith in
Jesus’ day was not defined the way twenty-first century Americans use the
word. In a paraphrased nutshell, the
Bible says “Since you know that God is real, it would be foolish not to place
your faith in Him” (Romans 1:18-23, Acts 17:31).
New Testament writers verified the existence of God before
even mentioning faith. They were
convinced that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was a fact (I Cor. 15). Most of them had witnessed it themselves and
they were confident that recent history would satisfy anyone who had not been
there. Even more significant, the Holy
Spirit continued to bear witness as He worked in the hearts of seeking people.
"And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us" ( I John 3:24).
In other words, a person could meet God! Faith, for the Biblical generation, had to do
with trusting this God Whom they’d just met to work in their lives.
Supposing I asked a friend to deposit a thousand dollar
check for me. It may take faith to
believe that he will head for the bank instead of heading for Las
Vegas, but I will not doubt that my friend exists or
question whether or not we really had a conversation.
This is the same kind of faith children have in their
parents. One may count on a parent for
food, shelter, love, attention, advice, etc., but children will have such
dependence because they already know their parents. Likewise, since I am convinced of God’s
reality, I have faith enough to count on Him and obey Him.
My Christian pilgrimage has forced me to accept two
depressing realities. 1) When it comes
to religion, most people are not interested in truth. 2) Many American churchgoers are also
uninterested in truth.
But Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”
(John 14:6). These words must mean
something and there is no law of literary criticism that can transpose them to
read, “I am what ever you want truth to
be. I am that zone of comfort which
exists in your imagination to get you through your version of life.” Maybe, instead, the words mean exactly what
they say. Maybe it’s time to admit that
if Christianity isn’t true, it is meaningless.
We should stop evangelizing. We
should stop going to church. We should
stop doing whatever we associate with Christianity.
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless
and so is your faith. More than that,
we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about
God that He raised Christ from the dead" (I Cor.
15:14-15).
3)
Church History has shown us that not all church trends are good.
There
is a new and popular movement today called The Emergent Church. About
ninety percent of it is attractive and dead on accurate. That makes the
fallacious ten percent all the more potent! Truth mixed with falsehood is a
dangerous drink. This movement takes
Paul’s challenge of being “all things to all people” and applies it to our
American culture today. I am in complete agreement when they talk about
contextualization. We must speak in a language that people understand. We must
be relevant.
But
as I said, the remaining ten percent of this movement is deadly. We are
starting to hear that it is arrogant to claim we have a corner on the truth. We
are also being told how presumptuous it is to believe we can interpret the Bible
accurately.
I
have two simple questions for those who embrace this small, but significant,
portion of Emergent Church
Theology:
1)
If we cannot interpret the Bible accurately, why did God bother to give it to
us? If it is only about our opinions, why not just speculate about God over
coffee at Starbucks and leave our Bibles at home?
2)
I love it when one claims it is arrogant to talk about truth. I always like to
ask, “Is it just your opinion that one should not claim truth, or is it absolutely
true that one should not claim truth?”
They
are never saying it as a humble opinion. They are always scolding us
for being too dogmatic and in doing so, they reveal dogma of their own.
The
Emergent Church, in the name of modern relevance, is actually about to
repeat church history from one-hundred years ago, the Liberal-Fundamentalist Split,
in which sincere pastors tried to make the Bible conform to modern
thought. This was done because too many
people bought the lie that what is current and what looks sophisticated, must
also be true. And now, today, ironically, in the name of truth, The Emergent Church is catering to Post-Modernism's claim that truth can not be known.
Evangelicalism
began years later as an offshoot of Fundamentalism. It said, “Why let Liberal
theologians claim all the intellectual ground? One can defend the Bible and use
critical thinking at the same time.”
Today,
The Emergent Church is splitting The Evangelical Church and
reinventing the wheel.
Such
a subject takes a book to explain and I only wanted a short detour here, so, to
be fair, let me say that The Emergent Church is a wide, inclusive
movement and not everybody involved can be painted with a broad brush. I am
generalizing.
But
the dismissal of apologetics in church today is not merely the result of new
movements. Often, it is much more personal. Sometimes, pastors feel threatened
when they are barraged with skeptical questions about the faith. I do not mean
to sound critical of pastors. They do a great job and they have a difficult
task. The Bible teaches that we all have different spiritual gifts. According
to Ephesians 4, there is a difference between the office of pastor and the office of evangelist and an apologist does one kind
of evangelism. When I mentioned earlier that we were commanded to give
reasonable answers for our faith, I did not mean to suggest that every
Christian has the exact same skill. Such commands are given to the church at
large. Generally speaking, a pastor will teach theology and help people apply
the Scripture to their lives. They also do counseling, they intervene during
times of family crisis, and they administer the cohesiveness of the church.
This is a full time job and pastors cannot be expected to also be effective
evangelists. At the same time, it is the pastor’s job to nurture a wide range
of ministry in the body. If they are not comfortable with apologetics, they are
at least responsible to refer people to an apologist. To the credit of my own
pastor, he sought me out and talked me into joining his church because he felt
apologetics were extremely important. He too, enjoys studying apologetics, but
his pastoral duties limit how much time he can throw that direction. He still
had the integrity and humility to admit when a need in his church was not being
met.
Yes,
kudos to my pastor, but let’s be honest:
All too often, pastors take a different course. Since they, themselves,
are not into academia, they downplay academia. This may be a cover up for their ruffled pride. We start hearing things like, “Jesus is concerned about your heart, not your mind.” Actually, Jesus told
us to love God with our hearts and our
minds. (Matt. 22:37).
4)
As Christians, we are commanded to be courageous and not intimidated.
I
want to be fair here. I know many campus ministers personally. They are
wonderful people and when they tell me apologetics is irrelevant to the college
campus today, I believe they are being sincere. Although I disagree, I can see
they truly believe that Post-Modernism needs a new approach.
But
even though I can vouch for my own friends, I cannot vouch for everybody.
Sometimes, in the name of “methodology” or “spirituality” we are only
experiencing cowardice.
Once,
while participating in a panel discussion at Fresno
State, a fellow panelist (whom I’ll
leave unnamed) warned us all to avoid the subject of homosexuality. Otherwise
we would get kicked off the campus and not allowed to do ministry at all, and
well, Gee, God wants us to be able to do ministry, right?
On
a larger scale, churches may soon be asked to give up their tax-exempt status
if they refuse to marry gay people or even if they preach against
homosexuality. Although lately, churches and campus ministries have done a better
job of reaching out in love and compassion to homosexuals as individuals, they tend to roll over and
play dead in the face of homosexual activists, who, in the name of tolerance,
are completely intolerant of Christianity.
Just
watch: A time will come when we will
need some courage and many of our Evangelical pastors will start saying things
like, “Christ was about compassion. Christ was about love.”
Yes
Christ was compassionate. But allow me to translate the statement above more
accurately. “If we lose our tax exempt status, and our people cannot get a tax
break for their contributions, who will tithe any more?”
Persecution
is on the horizon but only in a subtle way. We will not see all churches closed
down. No indeed! Instead, we will only see churches that refuse to be Politically
Correct closed down.
But
part of the Gospel is speaking out against all evil, all hypocrisy and all
immorality. Yes, our God is merciful and He forgives a violation of the standard,
but we do not pretend the standard doesn’t exist, simply because we fear
repercussion.
When
Peter and John were dragged before the Sanhedrin and commanded to stop
preaching about Jesus, they replied,
“Judge
for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.
For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20).
Conclusion:
What has the abandonment of apologetics accomplished in our universities
today? In the seventies, professors were
only slamming the Bible. Now, we hear that America
itself is evil. But such evil developed because “the evil Christianity was
the cornerstone of Western Civilization.”
I
once had a college student (an Evangelical Christian, mind you) tell me that America
was the most evil nation on Earth. He was putting us ahead of North
Korea, Iran,
etc. He had nothing to back this up, other than the fact that he heard it from
his instructor.
If America is an evil culture, many of its citizens must also be evil. In fact, half of its citizens are evil, men! In
one extreme, but horrifying case, Catherine MacKinnon, at the University
of Michigan and Yale, teaches that
all men are rapists. Even if a woman has a loving husband, when they sleep
together, she may think he is loving her, but he is actually raping her. Such
professors will never be fired. The
college would be too scared of a lawsuit and would not want to be viewed as
persecuting women.
Speaking
of women, only recently, Wendy Doniger of the University
of Chicago
taught that Sarah Palin
is not a real woman, even though she has a womb. A real woman would be
Pro-Choice and Pro-Lesbian. Is Wendy Doniger aware that the leading
opponents to
abortion over the years have been women and not men? One would think a
college
professor would have such information at her fingertips. Now, is
Miss Doniger entitled to her opinion? Of course. She should
be allowed to say
whatever she wants without going to jail. That is what our constitution
guarantees.
But it does not guarantee that pea-brains be permitted to teach at an
institution of higher learning!
When
Ward Churchill, at the University of Colorado,
claimed that the victims of 9/11 were likened to Nazis, he was defended by the
university on the basis of free speech. Would they offer such a defense to a
Pro-Life professor or a professor with a different view of homosexuality or a
professor who taught the Bible without first showing what a stupid book it was?
Of
course, Conservative guest speakers are still allowed on college campuses (at
the moment) but how often do professors encourage their students to throw pies
at those dastardly Conservatives who do not deserve to be heard? After all, those guys are against the
National Endowment of the Arts, which display Christ in a pool of urine and
anybody who does not want to support such beautiful art with tax payer money
believes in censorship and, well, we don’t believe in censorship, so throw a
pie in that guy’s face and don’t allow anybody to hear what he has to say!
But
I saved the best for last. At a recent debate in San Diego,
my opponent claimed the Bible promoted rape. That’s right, you heard me
correctly: Rape. I was able to get up and say emphatically, “So…The Bible
promotes rape? THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!" I
proceeded to show how he had taken an Old Testament passage completely out of context.
Nobody in the room could deny how foolish this man looked for making such a
statement, but how often do people like that make their point without being
challenged? He was challenged that
night, maybe for the first time. How? I used apologetics.
This
is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.