Apologetics in sermons?

[Cow Poke]

It's hard to answer a question about "more sermons" in general. We can only speak to some particular church's teaching strategy. All Christians deserve to be taught the rudiments of apologetics, whether through the sermon, or small groups, or Sunday School, etc. I could certainly imagine a church that over-emphasized it until all that it produced was debating machines rather than Christians looking to love and serve their community.

Chances are that someone who hasn't been to church in a while has other things that need to be covered before apologetics.

Excellent points. AND, I'm having to remind myself that not everybody who comes to my Church has GROWN UP in Church*. I can't just make a passing reference to "the serpent lifted up in the wilderness" and expect them to know the meaning of that, or mentioning "the rod that budded". What the heck does THAT mean to somebody who doesn't know the context. Which is why I started off with "you have to know your audience".

*In fact, I'm purposely trying to reach the unchurched, and many of them have almost NO "foundation" in the Word.

[Quantum Weirdness]

The one place I'd like to see apologetics emphasized most heavily is in youth groups. Almost every young Christian is going to go through a faith crisis sooner or later, and we all know what they will be assailed with if they go off to college. Frankly, I sometimes am amazed that I stayed a Christian, having been told "don't think, just believe" by my youth group leader as a teenager when I expressed doubts.
Again, this doesn't mean teenagers need to have full courses on the ins and outs of modern textual criticism or the dating of documents or whatever, but they do need to have basic non-emotional reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

Agree with all of the above. I wonder how common the bolded is.

(Also, why is this thread in Ecclesiology?)

I had no idea where to put it. Also,

Quote
"Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=47
End Quote.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I haven't been to a church in a fair while, as some of you may know. The times that I were, however, didn't include apologetics. Do you all think that more sermons should include apologetics? (such as defending the Resurrection, date of the book of Daniel, the Torah, the Gospels etc. and especially, the literal Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic of the original text and its socio-historical contexts which give its likely meanings?)

I think there should be more apologetics. Many of the attacks on Christianity seem to be of the form "Christianity is intellectually stupid." The congregation needs to be able to say that there is an intelligent reason to belive in Christianity. Finding a pastor that is good at taking complex intellectual arguments and make them applicable to the congregation is the hard part. Being Biblically trained does not necessarily mean being Apologetics trained.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I think there should be more apologetics. Many of the attacks on Christianity seem to be of the form "Christianity is intellectually stupid." The congregation needs to be able to say that there is an intelligent reason to belive in Christianity. Finding a pastor that is good at taking complex intellectual arguments and make them applicable to the congregation is the hard part. Being Biblically trained does not necessarily mean being Apologetics trained.

()^∞
()^∞

[Paprika]

I haven't been to a church in a fair while, as some of you may know. The times that I were, however, didn't include apologetics. Do you all think that more sermons should include apologetics? (such as defending the Resurrection, date of the book of Daniel, the Torah, the Gospels etc. and especially, the literal Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic of the original text and its socio-historical contexts which give its likely meanings?)

I don't think the task of teaching apologetics or theology necessarily falls to the pastor. He already has quite a lot on his plate. I do think he can and should make parenthetical reference to resources when appropriate, or discuss certain topics such as theodicy (as KG brought up), but by and large he has to make the general thrust of the sermon accessible to at least most of the targeted audience.

It should be the role of those who have read up and reflected on such matters to do the teaching. On his part, of course, the pastor should seek out and encourage such members to become teachers.

[KingsGambit]

I do think the pastor should know enough to be able to say something to any church member who comes to them in private expressing doubts, or at least have someone to refer them to (this might be the case with, say, science-related issues).

[JB DoulosChristou]

When I preach, I'd say that it's pretty rare for me to spend much time in a sermon dealing with issues of apologetics directly. I try to keep things relatively accessible (and I continue to be surprised and suspicious whenever I'm commended for expressing myself rather simply). Honestly, before a congregation is trained in defending the gospel, they need to have a clearer notion of the gospel and its implications to begin with. So my sermons tend to be mainly oriented more toward solid theological notions and their practical effects in the life of the church. But I do dip into apologetics in subtle ways during the course of sermons. Last time I preached a pre-Advent sermon covering the saga from creation to new creation, I made sure to relate the account of the crucifixion and resurrection in a way that made clear why the story is credible. Last time I preached from the Book of Joshua, I incorporated enough backstory on the previous inhabitants of the land to somewhat defuse the typical array of charges. In neither case was that the main thrust of the message. I wouldn't be opposed to preaching sermons focused more intently on apologetics, when I've got a sense of which particular issues the congregation is most critically facing and when some of the people have enough spiritual health to actually devote the brainpower to pay attention. But even when my sermons don't include much that I'd classify as apologetics, strictly speaking, I can all but guarantee that it won't devolve into mere mushy emotion-talk - partly because I don't remember how to do that.

[RBerman]

I don't think the task of teaching apologetics or theology necessarily falls to the pastor. He already has quite a lot on his plate. I do think he can and should make parenthetical reference to resources when appropriate, or discuss certain topics such as theodicy (as KG brought up), but by and large he has to make the general thrust of the sermon accessible to at least most of the targeted audience.

It should be the role of those who have read up and reflected on such matters to do the teaching. On his part, of course, the pastor should seek out and encourage such members to become teachers.

All true. The church leadership has the responsibility of making sure that the people of the church are prepared for the tasks set before them, which include promoting and defending the Faith. The best way to do that will depend on many factors.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I don't think the task of teaching apologetics or theology necessarily falls to the pastor. He already has quite a lot on his plate. I do think he can and should make parenthetical reference to resources when appropriate, or discuss certain topics such as theodicy (as KG brought up), but by and large he has to make the general thrust of the sermon accessible to at least most of the targeted audience.

It should be the role of those who have read up and reflected on such matters to do the teaching. On his part, of course, the pastor should seek out and encourage such members to become teachers.

I disagree. If the pastor has too much on his plate to do some level of apologetics preaching, then he should get stuff off his plate so he can do apologetics. The great commission is to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples and both of these require some apologetics.

Of course, he should have some experts on special topics or people who need a complex answer to their question and extra teachers available to help teach the church. In my opinion, a pastor who does no apologetics and does not know any apologetics is not qualified to be a pastor.

[Cow Poke]

I disagree. If the pastor has too much on his plate to do some level of apologetics preaching, then he should get stuff off his plate so he can do apologetics. The great commission is to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples and both of these require some apologetics.

Of course, he should have some experts on special topics or people who need a complex answer to their question and extra teachers available to help teach the church. In my opinion, a pastor who does no apologetics and does not know any apologetics is not qualified to be a pastor.

I'm always amazed at how so many people think they know what pastors need to do, or what needs to be on or off their plates. Somehow, this poor iggernent preacher has managed to lead a number of folks to saving faith in Jesus where he has served, and there are more than a few missionaries, pastors, youth ministers and personal soul winners that that have come from those Churches.

When you can tell me you are an effective fisher of men, I'll be happy to listen to your advice on how to fish.

[Paprika]

I disagree. If the pastor has too much on his plate to do some level of apologetics preaching, then he should get stuff off his plate so he can do apologetics. The great commission is to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples and both of these require some apologetics.

I disagree. For certain groups within some subcultures within some cultures, intellectual objections may be something that threatens the flock and thus requires the pastor to lead efforts in apologetics. But for many congregations, I doubt that is necessary.

What I do think is non-negotiable is that the leaders encourage the congregation to think through their faith to understand what it means, so that they will not conform to the pattern of the world - whatever pattern the surrounding society follows - and be the salt of the earth. But how and when this is done should depend on the needs and the development of the congregation, especially when it consists of different groups with different needs and challenges, so there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach.

[JB DoulosChristou]

I'm always amazed at how so many people think they know what pastors need to do, or what needs to be on or off their plates. Somehow, this poor iggernent preacher has managed to lead a number of folks to saving faith in Jesus where he has served, and there are more than a few missionaries, pastors, youth ministers and personal soul winners that that have come from those Churches.

When you can tell me you are an effective fisher of men, I'll be happy to listen to your advice on how to fish.

In fairness to Thoughtful Monk here, some manner of competence in apologetics is likely indeed part of the biblical requirements for the position of elder, as per Titus 1:9.

[Paprika]

In fairness to Thoughtful Monk here, some manner of competence in apologetics is likely indeed part of the biblical requirements for the position of elder, as per Titus 1:9.

The context is surely more aligned with refuting false doctrine rather than with refuting skeptics. Nonetheless, it requires the ability to refute what is false, not that active refutation be a key priority.

[Cow Poke]

In fairness to Thoughtful Monk here, some manner of competence in apologetics is likely indeed part of the biblical requirements for the position of elder, as per Titus 1:9.

Quite possibly, JB, and I apologize to TM...

I had just spent 3 hours at St. Luke's Hospital with one of our young couples, as the doctor explained to the young mother that she has breast cancer, and it is pretty "advanced". When I read TM's post, I couldn't help thinking "how do you get that off my plate"? The answer, of course, is that I wouldn't even try.

[JB DoulosChristou]

The context is surely more aligned with refuting false doctrine rather than with refuting skeptics. Nonetheless, it requires the ability to refute what is false, not that active refutation be a key priority.

Difficult to draw a clear line between "refuting false doctrine" and "refuting skeptics", and both would have to be classified under apologetics. It would be hard to argue that Paul only valued the one, considering how much of his ministry was devoted to both tasks. And certainly, there are many other additional priorities of the pastor, which may at this time or that time take precedence - but the ability to refute both false doctrine and the general anti-Christian arguments of professed skeptics is something that is refined through "active refutation" where needed. And seldom does it seem that the New Testament commends inert abilities that aren't being employed where the need arises or transmitted for the upbuilding of the whole body.

Quite possibly, JB, and I apologize to TM...

I had just spent 3 hours at St. Luke's Hospital with one of our young couples, as the doctor explained to the young mother that she has breast cancer, and it is pretty "advanced". When I read TM's post, I couldn't help thinking "how do you get that off my plate"? The answer, of course, is that I wouldn't even try.

Agreed entirely. For most churches, it really isn't feasible to mandate that the main role of the senior pastor be that of theologian or apologist - it's one of a constellation of key roles. The role of a pastor is, I would think, to equip the collective body for ministry, and that includes taking the lead in ministry: both the lead in a ministry of teaching and defending the faith, and the lead in a ministry of comforting the afflicted through the resources that that faith provides. Striking the balance is hard, especially in an observer-driven culture that insists on reducing this equipping ministry to a sole ministry. Ideally, as a congregation's understanding of ministry is shifted back to a pastor-as-equipper model (which is no easy feat!), the congregation can take its rightful portion of both apologetics and comforting from the pastor's plate - leaving the latter still quite full, but able to accommodate a portion of each in its due proportion.