When did "Apologetics" Become a Dirty Word?

[NorrinRadd]

As someone who wasn't raised in mainstream Christianity, I didn't "discover" apologetics till probably the turn of this century. Before that discovery (and before my full acceptance of Christ), I assumed that there might be some intellectual basis to this whole Christianity thing, but that it was outside of my reach. The concept of a systematic theology seemed shadowy to me. Something maybe a lot of highfalutin types talked about in their ivory towers. I didn't know anything about the C.S. Lewis' of the Christian faith, much less about popularizers like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. But once I encountered the works of folks like J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and yeah, C.S. Lewis, I came to realize that there was a deeply intellectual level and long historical basis for a reasonable understanding of Christianity. It really turned my world around, and, unfortunately, I bored the hell out of my friends and family who I wanted to talk to about these things non-stop.

I was amazed by the richness of the Christian belief system. The concept of a deeply reasoned systematic theology was fascinating to me, and helped answer so many questions I had, and so many questions that my non-believing friends had, but most Christians I know/knew had zero patience for it. Instead they emphasized a very simple faith. One that didn't ask question or seek deep answers. One that was primarily based on personal experiences. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with a faith based on personal experiences, but that seems like the tip of the iceberg to me of a reason based faith.

More than that, my friends and family who base their faith on experience are, more than not, actually anti-intellectual. A well-reasoned, systematic theological system is not fully trusted. Apologetics is a dirty word to them because it brings to mind the idea of apologizing for being a Christian. And like I once thought, they think of deeper theology as something left to out of touch eggheads debating how many angels can dance on a pin head in their ivory towers. I sort've given up on these types who simply do not want to hear about the early church, NT scholarship, and natural theology.

Lately though, I've been seeing an attack on apologetics from another sector I totally didn't expect. From actual intellectuals. I've run into a number of people I accept as Christian intellectuals (of sorts) that seem to totally distrust Christian apologetics as something ad hoc, and not worthy exploring. Like my anti-intellectual friends and family they seem to have a deep distrust of a reasoned faith, and prefer a definition of faith that's unknowable, and mysterious, and more or less blind. Apologetics is a dirty word.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? Anyone want to discuss this issue you if you have?

K, that's what this thread is about. Thanks.

My allergies kept me from sleeping well, and I'm having a bit of trouble organizing my thoughts. But that rarely stops me from sharing them. :-D

In the '60s and '70s, I was not "raised in" Christianity. That is, my family and I considered ourselves Lutherans, but we were almost entirely non-practicing. I was familiar with "Bible characters" and "Bible stories," but had no understanding of "salvation" or being a "believer." I got "born again" in early 1980 at college, and a few months later started attending C&MA churches and fellowships. My first encounter with "apologetics" was at that time, via Josh McDowell books. Back then I naively wished I could memorize all that material, because what unbeliever could possibly overcome all those facts? Now, I still find that material interesting, and not totally without value, but not nearly so powerful. And it seems much of it focused on defense of Biblical inerrancy, which as I've said elsewhere is largely a red herring in practical terms.

For a time, the notion of "Systematic Theology" was very appealing to me. My college background is in engineering, and the possibility of fitting things together logically into a neat, coherent whole is appealing to my basic nature. But in the past 20 years or so, I've moved to a preference for "Biblical Theology." I believe there is a general theological framework, but I am highly dubious that all Biblical passages can fit neatly into any particular tidy "System."

I have very little interest in philosophical or "deeply intellectual" approaches, and I don't think I ever did have much.

I also think apologetics has been harmed by the arrogant, harshly narrow-minded dogmatism, not just of various "online" bloviators, but of well known theologians like John MacArthur.

[hedrick]

I find at least some kinds of theology helpful. The problem I have with apologetics is that almost everything I've seen has huge holes in the reasoning. And I as a Christian want to believe. I can only imagine the reaction from the people it is actually targeted at.

[37818]

. . . The problem I have with apologetics is that almost everything I've seen has huge holes in the reasoning. And I as a Christian want to believe. . . .

What do you mean? Please give an example.

[Adrift]

My allergies kept me from sleeping well, and I'm having a bit of trouble organizing my thoughts. But that rarely stops me from sharing them. :-D

In the '60s and '70s, I was not "raised in" Christianity. That is, my family and I considered ourselves Lutherans, but we were almost entirely non-practicing. I was familiar with "Bible characters" and "Bible stories," but had no understanding of "salvation" or being a "believer." I got "born again" in early 1980 at college, and a few months later started attending C&MA churches and fellowships. My first encounter with "apologetics" was at that time, via Josh McDowell books. Back then I naively wished I could memorize all that material, because what unbeliever could possibly overcome all those facts? Now, I still find that material interesting, and not totally without value, but not nearly so powerful. And it seems much of it focused on defense of Biblical inerrancy, which as I've said elsewhere is largely a red herring in practical terms.

For a time, the notion of "Systematic Theology" was very appealing to me. My college background is in engineering, and the possibility of fitting things together logically into a neat, coherent whole is appealing to my basic nature. But in the past 20 years or so, I've moved to a preference for "Biblical Theology." I believe there is a general theological framework, but I am highly dubious that all Biblical passages can fit neatly into any particular tidy "System."

I have very little interest in philosophical or "deeply intellectual" approaches, and I don't think I ever did have much.

I also think apologetics has been harmed by the arrogant, harshly narrow-minded dogmatism, not just of various "online" bloviators, but of well known theologians like John MacArthur.

I'm curious then, what drew you to a forum called "Theology web"?

[seanD]

I"m not sure why there are attacks against it. Just general attacks doesn't make sense, but if their objection is due to it used to try and win souls, they might have a point... sort of. Personally, I'm beginning to think that apologetics is useless in trying to win converts or convince skeptics. I think it's a VERY useful tool in strengthening the faith of those already converted. It pretty much saved my faith. However, on the other hand, since we're commanded to win souls, I'm not sure what other way we could achieve this in this day and age without apologetics. Sort of a catch-22 I guess.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm curious then, what drew you to a forum called "Theology web"?

I'm argumentative. :-)

Ok, more seriously, I do enjoy discussions of theology and Biblical interpretation and application. And I do prefer to discuss from a standpoint that Scripture is inspired and authoritative. But I also recognize limitations.

I tend to gravitate mostly to discussions of Pentecostal/Charismatic issues, mutualism vs. patriarchalism issues, and Calvinism vs. Arminianism issues. Recognizing the limitations inherent in lacking inerrant copies, translations, hermeneutical principles, and application principles, and the immutability of deeply-held beliefs, I am usually thrilled if I can get my discussion opponents to concede so much as "Ok, I see why you believe that, even though I still don't agree."

[Darfius]

The Israelites knew that God existed and still had an orgy in front of the golden calf. People know that God exists, but suppress this truth with their wickedness. Apologetics is a very powerful method of reminding them of that which they wish to suppress. This includes lip service Christians whose idea of "faith" is a vague notion of God's existence but with no corresponding demands on their behavior.

[psstein]

I think there are two reasons, one due to how society views things and the other a result of anti-intellectualism:

1. People don't want to hear that religious beliefs are based on factually-based claims. I brought this up in a class once and seemingly outraged half the students. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then Christianity is true. If that didn't happen, then Christianity is false, no matter how much I "feel" that it's true. The same is true of other belief systems as well. If Muhammad's "revelation" in the form of the Qu'ran was delusory, then it follows that Islam is false.

2. It's tough work actually figuring out what you believe and why you believe it. Most Christians don't really know very much about what they believe- even those who were supposedly instructed in the faith (whether through catechism classes or something else). Most Christians can't be bothered to go examine the Bible and the early church's reasoning for why Christians believe what they believe. It requires way more intellectual work than blind acceptance.

[seanD]

I think maybe the connotation and reputation of apologetics and some apologists has deteriorated since the advent of the Internet, where egotistical, insecure, argumentative and petty posturing seem to prevail. At least I think that might be part of what's going on.

I think that's a result of the rise of "militant atheism" as the chief antagonist. I'm not saying that we're excused to resorting to their level, but it's pretty much become a tit for tat type of situation.

[KingsGambit]

One of the occupational hazards of the apologist is essentially one of pride - to become more interested in winning the argument than the person. In his book Humble Apologetics, John Stackhouse wrote about one apologist giving a speech at a college and answering The questions. The apologist basically defused the question by logically tearing it down without actually answering it, all while giving a know-it-all vibe. On the way out of the speech, one student was overheard saying, "He may be right, but I hate the son of a..."

I think this incident showcases where a noble endeavor (apologetics) can cross into a self-centered endeavor (sophism) if one is not careful.

[robrecht]

I think that's a result of the rise of "militant atheism" as the chief antagonist. I'm not saying that we're excused to resorting to their level, but it's pretty much become a tit for tat type of situation.

And, if so, as I've mentioned to you before, I fail to see the value of a tit-for-tat response. Even worse, it may be taken to imply that Christian faith has nothing better to offer than this new atheism.

[seanD]

And, if so, as I've mentioned to you before, I fail to see the value of a tit-for-tat response. Even worse, it may be taken to imply that Christian faith has nothing better to offer than this new atheism.

It is what it is

[Cerebrum123]

One of the occupational hazards of the apologist is essentially one of pride - to become more interested in winning the argument than the person. In his book Humble Apologetics, John Stackhouse wrote about one apologist giving a speech at a college and answering The questions. The apologist basically defused the question by logically tearing it down without actually answering it, all while giving a know-it-all vibe. On the way out of the speech, one student was overheard saying, "He may be right, but I hate the son of a..."

I think this incident showcases where a noble endeavor (apologetics) can cross into a self-centered endeavor (sophism) if one is not careful.

Sounds exactly like what Jesus did to the Pharisees. Same basic response too. I see this more an indictment of the person rejecting the apologist than the apologist himself.

[KingsGambit]

Sounds exactly like what Jesus did to the Pharisees. Same basic response too. I see this more an indictment of the person rejecting the apologist than the apologist himself.

I don't think the two are equivalent. Jesus didn't go around trying to show everybody how smart he was.

I also think an apologist has a responsibility to actually answer a question in front of a large audience. Even if he may seem clever for ducking out of it, it doesn't change that he gave the impression that Christianity couldn't handle the question straight up.

[Adrift]

I don't think the two are equivalent. Jesus didn't go around trying to show everybody how smart he was.

I also think an apologist has a responsibility to actually answer a question in front of a large audience. Even if he may seem clever for ducking out of it, it doesn't change that he gave the impression that Christianity couldn't handle the question straight up.

I don't think that's always the best approach. Ravi Zacharias often attempts to get to the heart of a questioner's question rather than answering the question directly (which he could easily do/has done). More often than not, the question is a symptom of something more deeply seated.