Pages

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

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.

16 comments:

  1. 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.

    I know what you are trying to say--and I agree with your overall point--but the statement above reminds me of when I heard Bill Gothard say "people have not rejected Christ. They have rejected a faulty presentation of Christ."

    I don't find where that statement meshes with Scripture. Christ was the "stone that the builders rejected"--and he was the perfect presentation of Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "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."

    Interesting. I've often heard many a Christian refer to 1 Peter 3:15 as obligating all Christians to "do" apologetics (Greg Bahnsen comes to mind). Although that may just be the difference between defending the faith when challenged and taking the initiative - going out there and addressing challenges to the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. :::YAWN!!!:::

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great...another Ted

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't at all take this as an attack, but would like to respond. I think you've mischaracterized me -- or I really, really failed to communicate clearly. At any rate, I'm concerned that anyone would read your summary of my position instead of my post, and come away with a mistaken impression of my own stance.

    1. I'd not say I was advocating preaching over apologetics. What I advocated was simply a different apologetic approach. Also, I'd be wary of making too facile a split between the two.

    2. As you note, I didn't say it'd be the approach I'd take to every dialogue.

    3. That having been said, while my presupposition certainly is a high Christology, it in no way depends on my hearer's sharing the same Christology. Haven't you often noted that almost everyone wants to claim Jesus? I did, when unsaved, as a cultist. All sorts of neo-everythings and a-everythings and otherwise pan-everythingists want to say Jesus was a great guy, a great teacher, a prophet, the pinnacle of human morality.... What my approach suggests is taking that up and saying in effect, "Yeah, but you know what darnedest thing is? He totally disagreed with you about ____. Why should I believe that you are right, but Jesus is wrong?" Puts the onus where it belongs.

    4. An important goal in apologetics is expressed in Proverbs 21:22 -- "A wise man scales the city of the mighty and brings down the stronghold in which they trust." My suggestion is to put a man in the position where he has to match creds with Jesus, match resumes, match qualifications. Bertrand Russell's refusal to agree that Jesus is the best man who ever lived stands out because it was weird, and his reasoning revealingly idiosyncratic. Most heap praise on Jesus. A martial art rule that applies in apologetics is: use your opponent's inertia against him. Step out of the way, hold out a foot, give a little push. By swinging the focus around to Jesus, I do just that.

    5. You don't mention my link at the end of the article, to an essay I wrote that is pure apologetics, including demolition and construction-work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good conversation! I think that a prepared Christian is listening to the Holy Spirit and using wisdom to know what approach is best suited for a given situation, and I believe that both major approaches being discussed here have there place, and I thank y'all for highlighting them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought Dan's post was quite powerful and to the point, but I also clearly read into it that there was most definitely a place for the work Triablogue is doing and was quite pleased to follow Dan's link to it in his post. It just gave me another great resource to use. Can't we adopt Paul's attitude in 1 Cor 9 and just use each approach as we are led? And I do recall what Dan went on further to say -- that to use the words he chose "You had better be prepared to give a reasoned defense for the hope you have in Jesus (1 Peter 3;15)." Isn't apologetics just that? And isn't Dan's exhortation to be prepared at least in part a reaction to what Steve described as calling Dan's "bluff?"

    Apologetics is great. It has certainly helped me shore up some of the weaknesses in my defenses and in turn given me the means to respond thoughtfully to objections. But the meat of it for me is that I did not come to faith in Christ through the use of apologetics. I wonder how many do. I came through hearing the word.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I came to Christ through the word, just like "rlf." After reading these posts, I picked up Van Tils apologetics book, I am hoping it will shine a little more light on this subject for me. I am not very good at witnessing with my words, I strive to be better everyday, and maybe someday God will use me for someone who needs him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After I was converted at university, I thought I could argue the atheist in my digs around to Christianity (all right, there were several atheists there, but he was a vocal one). I ended up making a complete fool of myself (again). That was when I discovered I couldn't do that. He didn't disbelieve because he wasn't informed, he WANTED to be an atheist.

    Having said that, if I hadn't read everything James White has on his website, I wouldn't have stood a chance against that informed atheist.
    And I might have got that assignment in on time too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Its kind of humorous to read these responses. People seem to think that atheists are somehow making a choice to believe, or not to believe.

    Its not their choice. No amount of hand waving and deep textual analysis can cause the atheist to simply "believe," that only comes from God, right?

    So, why blame the atheist for not believing something he or she is not capable of believing anyway? Why call them "fools" for not believing in God...they CANNOT believe in God unless they get that special touch. Not their fault.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Shiny/Burny for the compliment...

    Can anybody make themself believe (in a knowledge way or a saving way) in Jesus? Is it a choice a person makes on their own?

    ReplyDelete
  12. God prevents me from believing. If He wanted me to believe, I would.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shining and burning, you're avoiding my question...

    "CAN I MAKE MYSELF BELIEVE IN GOD?"

    Saying the words don't mean anything...there has to be a regenerated heart, right?

    can I make that happen?

    If not...how is it 'my fault' that I get to be fuel for the eternal fire?

    (yes, calvinists, I know, you have no problem with the theology that I am simply a vessel created for destruction...)

    ReplyDelete
  14. so shining, you won't answer the simple question?

    Your counter questions are irelevant when you consider that:

    I CANNOT BELIEVE ANY OTHER WAY THAN GOD WANTS ME TO!!!! I CAN'T REPENT WITHOUT GOD MAKING IT SO. NOTHING COMES TO BE OUTSIDE OF HIS PLAN.

    Is that clear enough?

    So, I am not repentant. That is God's plan. If it were His plan, than I would repent and believe.

    Why don't you get this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shiny/Burny

    I don't blame God for my unbelief. He's not real!

    I don't blame God for my sin...I don't believe in 'sin' either.

    SB said:

    "Do you really think that saying, "Well, it's God's plan that I not believe and go to hell" absolves you of your unbelief and sin?"

    YES! How could it be otherwise. Its God's will, not mine. I can't control my destiny, that is God's job.

    "Do you think that question makes you appear just and God unjust?"

    Just showing that according to your belief system, I'm not ultimately responsible for my unbelief. so, big whoop.

    "It's not your fault, so what could you do? Are you going to place the weight of your soul on that statement?"

    Souls don't weigh much....plus, I doubt they even exist, so I'm not losing sleep over it. Besides, I'm just living out the plan God has put into place.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shining and Burning...

    Yikes! What ever shall I do?

    If only it was my choice to make!!!

    But alas, its not. Only God can cause my heart to be changed, and apparently that is not according to the master plan. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete