Preaching & apologetics

Yesterday, Dan Phillips did a post on apologetics in which he said, among other things:

***QUOTE***

Now, there's a real point to going Triablogue on these chestnuts. But the thing is, every one of them has been decisively Triablogued (or the equivalent) a hundred times already. More. And that's good. But sometimes, another approach might be more effective.

Here is my suggestion for that other approach. It can be put in eight words. Are you ready for them? Here they are:

"Why should I believe you instead of Jesus?"

(Alternate nine-word form: "How did you get so much smarter than Jesus?")

Our real primary goal isn't to convince everyone that evolution is folly, homosexuality is a sin, paganism is false, there is a god, abortion is murder, or even that the Bible is unique and inspired. There will be a lot of people in Hell who have right opinions on all those subjects. Nobody ever went to Heaven simply because he held a correct view about any or all of them. The correct answer to the question, "What can wash away my sin?" is not "Nothing but the accurate dating of the Pauline corpus."

The correct opinion about human origins, or world religions, or homosexuality, or private property, does not save. Jesus saves. Therefore, we want to preach Jesus.

So why not cut straight to Him? Why not make The issue the issue? After all, isn't it the truth that all these other errors are best addressed, once the matter of Jesus' Lordship is addressed?

My apologetic point is not that I'm smarter than Wellhausen or Winfrey, Hick or Hawking, Crossan or Campbell, Darwin or Donahue. My apologetic point is that Jesus is literally infinitely smarter than any of them -- or than I, for that matter. I don't primarily want to convince them that Chopra is wrong. I primarily want to convince them (God doing His miraculous work above, beyond, through, and in spite of me) that Jesus is right.

But to some degree you should know at least some of the reasons why it is only rational to place confidence in the Gospels. Here's where a book like Reinventing Jesus can be very helpful.

The most important reasoned conviction an apologist/evangelist needs to have is that Jesus is the answer. The suggestion here is simply that it may often be wisest to cut straight to Him, rather than be drawn into a seventeen-movement ballet on the way there.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/10/leaning-on-jesus-apologetically.html

***END-QUOTE***

A few comments:

1.I agree with Dan that we would be flexible and have more than one tool in our toolbox.

2.I also agree that preaching can be more effective than apologetics.

In an age of pervasive Biblical illiteracy, many anti-Christian unbelievers don’t even know what they’re opposing.

Their conception of the Christianity is based on a third-hand caricature from hostile sources.

They don’t know enough about the Christian faith to really reject it. When they reject Christianity, what they reject is not Christianity, but something which a Biblically literate Christian would also reject.

So there’s often a lot to be said for simply educating them on the essentials of the faith.

3.Having said all that, there are also quite a few unbelievers who would be quite happen to call Dan’s bluff, if I may put it that way, and explain when he should believe them instead of Jesus, or why they are so much smarter than Jesus.

For Dan’s appeal to Jesus presupposes a high Christology which, in turn, presupposes a high view of Scripture.

There is no doubt that Jesus is infinitely smarter than any unbeliever, however brilliant or erudite; is infinitely smarter than any angel.

But, of course, if the unbeliever already believed that Jesus was God Incarnate, then he wouldn’t be an unbeliever.

He might be a nominal believer, but that’s not the sort of unbeliever we’re talking about.

Yes, Jesus saves, but they don’t believe that Jesus saves.

For, although many unbelievers are quite ignorant of Christianity, they are also quite conversant why all the reasons for not believing in the Bible.

I’d add that part of personal evangelism is being a good listener. What we do at T-blog is to listen to the unbeliever’s objections, and answer them.

So we are, in effect, dealing with the actual person across the table.

I’d also add that are target is not limited to unbelievers. Indeed, militant unbelievers are almost unreachable.

As I’ve said before, we are targeting two other groups: (i) undecided unbelievers and (ii) believers who suffer from intellectual doubts of one sort or another. Believers who feel under the gun.

I’m all for whatever works.

Finally, a commenter had the following statement:

***QUOTE***

Jon from Reidville, SC said...

Dan:

Thanks for the great post. We often get into the big philosophical discussion to puff our own ego as well as allowing it to puff up the other person in their unbelief. Often the best approach is to follow Paul and "preach Christ crucified!"

I posted today on the Ten Commandments and using them to witness. I think that with many people we need to follow the ol' KISS principle!

***END-QUOTE***

I notice that Jon is a blogger.

http://standingontherock.blogspot.com/

I also notice what he does as well as what he refrains from doing.

And my temptation is to say that I prefer the way we do apologetics to the way he doesn’t do apologetics.

I just wonder if he’s speaking from personal experience. What’s the success rate of his alternative approach?

How many people has he tried it on?

What happens when he tries his approach on an unbelieving philosophy major or unbelieving science major?

My point is not that every Christian is called upon to do apologetics. I don’t advocate every-member apologetics. Not every Christian has the same calling, and every Christian is not cut out to do apologetics.

At the same time, those who don’t do apologetics should think twice before they criticize those who do.

If you think you can do a better job, then, by all means, do it.

If you can’t, then step aside. Don’t get between the unbeliever and me if you’re unprepared to take up the slack.

I can’t help thinking about James White. About all the people who whine about James White. Who find fault with how he expresses himself. Endless carping critics.

To them I’d say, if you think that you can to a better job, then, by all means, go for it!

But if you can’t, then move aside, keep your mouth shut, and let someone else do the talking.

N. B. This is not directed at Dan Phillips.