A paper for the European Apologetics Network, 2006

Jesus as Logician and Apologist

^{A paper presented to the European Apologetics Network at the European Leadership Forum hosted in Eger, Hungary. 
May 20-25, 2006.}

As in all things, we should do the work of apologetics in the manner of Jesus Christ.  This would mean that our aim would be to help people, not to prove that we are right, or to coerce them into things which they do not from their heart believe.  It is not something we do defensively.  Apologetics is a helping ministry.

We observe the ministry of Jesus as he tries to help people understand.  For example, John the Baptist (Matt. 11:1-6), or the scribes sitting by (Mark 2:5-12), or Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50)

We see that there is a difference between the work of the apologist and the work of the evangelist and the work of the soul-winner, the one who gets people to make decisions.  Apologetics is, by the way, not only of service to non-Christians.  Serious Christians need it.

APOLOGETICS ONE-ON-ONE:

Jesus told his first students how to accomplish their objectives: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matt. 10:16)  What is the wisdom of the serpent?   Timeliness.  What is the innocence of the dove?  (Other translations say “guileless.”)  The idea is, I believe, that we should not be manipulative, but speak very plainly and be completely straightforward.

Jesus also teaches us that we should teach concretely, out of our life, as much as possible.  Hence his use of stories and parables. (Matt. 13:52)  The unsystematic manner of teaching is dictated by the aim of addressing questions that are in the minds of our hearers.  We must identify the questions that are actually in the minds of our hearers.  I think there is real danger in placing too much emphasis on proving things, but often questions of evidence are very important: e.g., the reality of the resurrection or the reliability of Scripture.

Identifying questions is a part of what is involved in helping people from the inside.  That is, we want the truth to come to them with the force of something they have discovered, not something being imposed upon them.  Starting with their questions helps us do that.

So we are to listen to people very carefully.  This may be something that cannot be accomplished upon just one occasion.  We must not hurry. Sometimes we may need to go off to muse or pray over what we have heard, and ask for the Holy Spirit to help us understand, and then return and listen some more.  Spirit led “diagnosis” is vital for the work of one-on-one apologetics.  We want to really be on the side of the persons we are dealing with: to accurately identify and identify with their problems, not just “dispense the right answer.”  Otherwise we may “win the battle but lose the war.”

And we must understand logic well enough to know what does or does not follow from what, and what does and does not contradict what.  We want to rely on logic to do its work in the minds of our hearers.  Again, that is part of bringing the answers from the “inside.”  But sometimes we have to point out, help them see, logical connections and disconnections.  Many if not most of the problems that bar people from accepting Christ as Lord are based upon confusions—sometimes quite obvious ones if you know logic.  Just simple logic will do.

There is, of course, a time for a much more systematic approach to the questions and answers that come up in the work of apologetics.  We need theological understanding on a wide scale, and that bleeds over into straightforward philosophical work we need.  This is required homework for those who would do apologetics in the manner of Jesus.

Also, we must not depend upon our own cleverness.  We want to do our best, but not rely upon “our best.”  We acknowledge the Holy Spirit and expect him to work.  We do not want to see something happen that is only our work. (Paul: I Cor. 4:4-5, I Thess. 1:4-6)

APOLOGETICS ON A LARGER SCALE:
Most of what has been said continues to apply as we undertake the helping ministry of apologetics at the group level or in the public arena—especially with regard to the attitude with which we do this work.  Here we are thinking of speaking before Christian or non-Christian groups.  Perhaps of writing for the broader public, or teaching in Christian educational institutions.

We must know our audience, and what the real hindrances are that keep them back from Christ, whether they are concerned about their souls, indifferent, or actively hostile.  We need to be aware of what they are hearing and how it influences them.  We need to listen to what they are listening to and how they are hearing it.  What are the “authorities” in their life.  For example, what do they believe “science says.”  What do they think Christianity is?  Who are the heroes and villains in their life and their culture?  What in the popular arts shape their feelings and attitudes about things? What comes to them from their educational system?

What are specific topics on which they have opinions?  The bible as a source of knowledge?  Evolution? The relativity of truth?  The Church? Resurrection is impossible?  Only a mean God would send people to hell?  Everybody is okay anyway?  All religions are the same? Etc. etc.  What are the things that we need to understand on these subjects? Here is where we need to do systematic study if we are to help people in groups by addressing the issues.

We need to understand that the University as it is now set up is an authoritarian myth- factory, and that the popular media (“news”) makes the myths widely available and lends them respectability or at least “standing.” This alone accounts for the amazing “success” of something like the “Da Vinci Code,” and for how intellectually feeble stuff like “The Gospel of Judas” gets a hearing. Being academically credentialed has little connection now with devotion to truth and sound method.  But so-called scholars need love and truth just like everyone else. They tend to be smothered in fads of their profession. We need to watch for and address how the public topics become personal.  Better to engage in joint inquiry in public than debate. “We are in this together, trying to find the truth,” should be our loving approach.