I am curious about a dynamic I see all around me, here as well in the U.S. and the world at large. There is a flavor of anger and confrontation to the apologetics I see both here and elsewhere. I recognize that many atheists likewise have a confrontational approach to dealing with theists, and I wish I could apologize on behalf of all of them. There are times I think most atheists are just angry ex-theists that have not completely let go of their original worldview.
But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ? The stories of Jesus convey the impression of a man who was masterful at countering skeptics without ripping into them. Only once, that I recall, did Jesus ever "lose it," and that was when he encountered the hordes disrespecting the sacred place he saw as "my father's house." Beyond that, he apparently responded evenly and creatively to the most obnoxious of challenges, creating an atmosphere of invitation to his teaching, rather than a knee-jerk reaction against it. Even when he was to be arrested to be ultimately taken to his death, the stories convey the image of a gentle-man, even healing the ear of one of his oppressors.
Yet nowhere is there an impression that Jesus of Nazareth was a wimp. He conveys the sense of strength, self-assuredness in his faith, and concern for those who he believed would ultimately benefit from his message. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is a powerful, masterful strategy for dealing with the situation. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to god what is god's," is similarly powerful and masterful.
Doesn't all the rage and confrontation achieve the exact opposite of what you want to achieve?
I want to be clear that I do not see this from ALL people here, or even ALL the time. But it is certainly here, and with remarkable regularity.
Thoughts...?
But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ? The stories of Jesus convey the impression of a man who was masterful at countering skeptics without ripping into them. Only once, that I recall, did Jesus ever "lose it," and that was when he encountered the hordes disrespecting the sacred place he saw as "my father's house." Beyond that, he apparently responded evenly and creatively to the most obnoxious of challenges, creating an atmosphere of invitation to his teaching, rather than a knee-jerk reaction against it. Even when he was to be arrested to be ultimately taken to his death, the stories convey the image of a gentle-man, even healing the ear of one of his oppressors.
Yet nowhere is there an impression that Jesus of Nazareth was a wimp. He conveys the sense of strength, self-assuredness in his faith, and concern for those who he believed would ultimately benefit from his message. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is a powerful, masterful strategy for dealing with the situation. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to god what is god's," is similarly powerful and masterful.
Doesn't all the rage and confrontation achieve the exact opposite of what you want to achieve?
I want to be clear that I do not see this from ALL people here, or even ALL the time. But it is certainly here, and with remarkable regularity.
Thoughts...?
Comment