The New Apologetics

By Kyle Roberts
February 08, 2011

A "new apologetics" for a post-modern, post-Christian society will focus less on

winning arguments than witnessing to the redemptive power of Christ.

Is the place of apologetics in contemporary Christian theology and ministry changing?

Apologetics, within the modern evangelical framework, is understood as a reasoned defense of the coherence and intellectual validity of Christian faith and belief. It tends to draw upon "worldview" language and usually involves an active comparison of religious, philosophical, and ethical frameworks. Apologetics is usually considered an evangelistic enterprise, though one characterized by cerebral discussions. The "target" of apologetic practice is normally an intellectually sophisticated non-Christian, agnostic or atheist.

When talking about apologetics, the question usually arises regarding how many non-Christians are "converted" to Christianity through an apologetic dialogue. A common concession one hears is that apologetics often ends up being more about strengthening and encouraging the faith of Christian believers than winning and converting new ones. In either case, whether it is for the evangelism of unbelievers or for the discipleship of the converted, apologetics—even as traditionally practiced—can be fruitful and positive.

However, it is worth considering, in our evolving cultural context, whether a fresh paradigm for apologetics might render new energy and vitality to a time-tested practice. Theologians over the centuries have always reexamined the right way to engage with unbelief. For followers of Aquinas, for instance, apologetics includes "natural theology" (reflecting on the qualities of God made manifest in nature) and takes an optimistic outlook on the place of general human knowledge in articulating Christian belief. For followers of Karl Barth, on the other hand, apologetics, when it bases its argument on propositions independent of Christian revelation and practice, is regarded with deep skepticism. Both perspectives are still found in the dialogue today. Yet the Thomistic and Barthian concerns might find some common ground in a "new apologetic" for the 21st century that would be 1) evangelistic, 2) integrative, 3) holistic, 4) communal, and 5) contextual.

Evangelistic: We still need to practice apologetics today, because evangelism is no less important today than it was in the first century. Christ is still Lord and redeemer, but many still have not personally experienced his Lordship and redemption. Apologetics, as I see it, is simply what happens when theology (and philosophy, science, history, and sociology—but more about that later) is utilized in an evangelistic dialogue.

When a Christian is engaged in conversation with non-believers or skeptics, questions invariably arise: Why do you trust the Bible as your primary source of divine revelation? Why is there so much evil and suffering in the world? Why should I accept the uniqueness of Christ in an age of many putative gods or potential saviors? Apologetics simply is the attempt to address these questions with pastoral sensitivity, communal embodiment, and intellectual viability.

A caveat: While Christians ought to continue to practice evangelism, we need to maintain a poignant—though painful—recognition of our past and present failures to respect the other and to distinguish between Jesus-styled evangelism and triumphalism. We need to be aware that colonialism and imperialism have often masked themselves as evangelism and mission. But this awareness should not keep Christians from sharing the Lordship of Jesus and from answering probing questions about their faith and theological convictions. With that caveat in mind, the "new apologetics" should be:

Integrative: "All truth is God's truth." If something is true, it counts—no matter whether it comes from scripture or from science, from "the book of God" or the "book of nature." Apologetics should take an explicitly and intentionally integrative stance and methodology. Science can show us how nature works, introduce us to the outer reaches of the cosmos and explore the inner workings of the quantum world, and detail the origins of the universe and the remarkable development of biological life. Apologetics ought to embrace the discoveries of science, while recognizing that contemporary scientific consensus does not have the final word (as any responsible scientist would acknowledge). Prevailing scientific explanations will eventually be outstripped and outdated by new discoveries. This does not give us continual license, however, to pit interpretations of the Bible against science while closing our eyes to evidence. Models of integration between science and theology can be found in the work of people like Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Nancey Murphy, and Francis Collins. While these figures are not often labeled as apologists, they offer resources for communicating the reasonableness of the Christian faith in positive, integrative ways. If apologetics is intentionally integrative, then it need not worry so much about "defending the corners" (per Daniel Harrell's phrase) as about exploring the intersections.

Holistic: Apologetics has often been characterized and practiced as a "lone ranger" discipline. The "brave Christian apologist" (usually a white male) takes his stand against the secularist, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., attempts to poke holes in the armor of his opponent, and to persuasively defend his faith against all comers. While we could locate, perhaps, examples of early Christians in the New Testament articulating their faith and defending their convictions in the public marketplace (Paul and Peter come to mind), it seems that early Christian witness, on the whole, was a communal and holistic enterprise. Christians cared for the sick, fed the hungry, and clothed the naked—just like their master taught them—and in so doing they proclaimed the Lordship and salvation of Christ. Perhaps apologetics ought to work at integrating not just other disciplines, but also the practices of Christian life and discipleship into and along with intellectual discourse.

Communal: The most influential book I have read on the topic of the "new apologetics" (and the book isn't all that new!) is Brad Kallenberg's Live to Tell: Evangelism in a Postmodern Age. Kallenberg points out that people learn a new language best by immersion in a culture and community. In the 1950s, Christians could pretty well assume an in-depth familiarity with the Christian language. Americans in general knew what sin, grace, and forgiveness meant. They had at least a rudimentary familiarity with the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. They had heard the "old, old story" many times. But in our post-modern, post-Christian, increasingly secular age, these words and concepts can be as foreign as German or Spanish words to an English-only speaker. In order to learn a new language well, one must observe the meanings of words in a lived context. Those words need to be embodied and enacted in a community of people committed to living them out with authenticity. Apologetics, then, is not merely a defense of certain truths; it is an invitation into a community that seeks to live out those truths deeply and daily.

Contextual: The narrative of the history of the modern Western Christian missions movement contains much that is positive and good. However, as renowned missiologist Paul Hiebert pointed out masterfully in his formative essay, "Critical Contextualization," it also contains a good bit that is deserving of critique, repentance and sadness. Too often Western missions became about transmitting American culture rather than biblical truth. The exporting of "Christianity" wasn't always about the Lordship and Redemption of Christ. Too often, perhaps, the discipline of apologetics has fallen into the same trap. Winning intellectual arguments may come not only at the expense of relationships, but also at the expense of authentic contextualization. When non-Christians engage the message of Christ and the hope of the Gospel, there needs to be a range of freedom to appropriate that message in ways that are authentic to that person's (or that community's) context. The earnestness of the apologist (and his or her conviction about "the truth") may at times preclude a genuine contextualization of truth.

For some, the term "apologetics" has taken on too many negative connotations to continue to be useful. They believe it is time to dispense with the term altogether. I am not convinced. Saving the term, however, is less important than revitalizing and re-contextualizing the concept. Christians need to continue to talk about the best way to communicate the heart of the gospel and the saving message of Christ in compelling and coherent ways. To that end, apologetics (or whatever one may call it) should be evangelistic, integrative, holistic, communal, and contextual.

Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Lead Faculty of Christian Thought, Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN). He researches and writes on issues related to the intersection of theology, philosophy, and culture.

Roberts' column, "Theological Provocations," is published every second Tuesday on the Evangelical portal. Subscribe via email or RSS. http://kylearoberts.com/wordpress/