In a world that worships at the altar of rational thought – the new religion of we moderns – Christians find themselves increasingly on the defensive. Apologetics has been the traditional tool we use to push back and assert the reasonableness of our faith. And yet, as with all tools, we must use them cognizant of their purposes and very aware of their limits. I fear we have clearly forgotten this in how we approach modern apologetics (of the scientific and rational variety) and have fallen into the grave error of investing too much time and hope in this activity.
Most of us in the Christian community today accept that apologetics is a sort of “admission ticket” to keeping the Christian counter-narrative at the table of public discussion. However, since we feel that we have this hammer, it seems we think everything may indeed be a nail. My aim is to shake this assumption by arguing that we have taken modern popular apologetics and assumed that more of it must be better – and so we now overuse it when most of our audience for these efforts remain unimpacted. I humbly offer this observation in spite of the fact that some of my colleagues and friends are heavily invested in the work of apologetics, and appear to have not noticed that the emperor may indeed be at least down to his socks and underwear (if not fully without clothes!).
In late-modern culture, we are witnessing a rapid and increasing falling away from orthodox Christian practice and belief. This began decades ago, but the last generations acted out of cultural habit in order to at least continue to appear culturally Christian. In recent years even the echo of this cultural fragment has faded. Our feet are now firmly planted in the materialist/scientific age with the former consensus of Christian voices silenced and side-lined in the public square and most institutions. The governing zeitgeist within the commanding heights of government and education is stewarded by those who see Christianity as a “nice fable” that they now ignore and criticize with impunity.
Given the prevalence of this materialistic-rationalistic framework, Christian apologetics is seen as a better way forward than taking moral or theological positions in a secular culture. Whereas we can imagine a time when the Church would speak boldly to the culture to remind them of their need of God, today we have divined that the culture needs us to engage in scientific and rational apologetics. I do not disagree with this in a general sense. However, my argument is that we have placed too many eggs in the apologetics basket.
We gave fallen victim to the naive idea that Christianity is so evidently rational that we need to take up the mantel of science and logic to remind the sceptics of its inherent truth. Indeed this is not a wasted effort since modern science does not in fact conflict, at the data level, with anything Christianity has historically taught. But at the broader narrative level, where data and observation is interpreted by the leading ideas of the day, there is indeed material conflict which logic and rationality will never fully address. That is because the presuppositions behind this framing narrative (through which sceptics see Christianity) does not allow for a pre-modern alternative that is now seen as a powerful myth. The new narrative accepts that Christianity contributed to the development of civilization in the West, but that it has now “played out” and is becoming a limiting factor which must be ejected. Scientific arguments cannot out this genie back in the bottle for sceptics of this particular type – and increasingly this is the enemy we fight.
Scientific and intellectual apologetics has its work to do and a role to play. It strengthens those within the faith. It can also provide sceptics with alternative views they have not considered that in some cases can lead one to further investigation or consideration or at least a better understanding of Christian counter-narrative of the data the world has given us. Yet, I fear a real danger in this emphasis. Observation of the falling away or “fuzzifying” of orthodox Christian belief – or the denuding and diluting to push it to the outer margins of societal discourse makes me think that such apologetics cannot be the sole treatment for this rather sick patient. In fact, it may not even be the best treatment and the one most needed in this battle (yet this is indeed the implicit position we seemingly cling to). Yes, we think, it is good to preach the Bible and Gospel, but alas, we say, apologetics is the future in addressing the post-modern mind. Let Ravi at them and get William Lane Craig and they will finally admit defeat! Could it be that evangelical Christianity has now allowed apologetics to be so prominent in our address to the culture that we have turned it into a sort of “intelligence signalling” so that we can proudly boast “We have our PhD as well and they are armed with great arguments”?
Have I overdone my concern about modern apologetics? I hope not, but I also do not want to take the sting out of the tail in terms of the point of concern that we are raising. Conversations with sceptics and nones/dones has to lead us to conclude that we are using this one tool too often when the broader issues are not that people are non-believers because they think Christians are dumb (and therefore, showing we are “smart” is not doing much). The battleground has shifted and Christians need to shift our focus materially. I will posit that this means turning the dial down a few notches in terms of apologetics as done today.
The core issue we see with youth who walk away from the church is that they no longer respect its authority to speak on moral matters and to speak to the heart of women and men in our culture. In short, the Church finds itself without perceived material moral authority, nor medicine for the sick modern soul. The debate has now shifted to the “authority space” in that who gets to define the moral high ground is where we see the friction and debate and subsequent loss of faith of commitment to orthodox Christian belief.
The solution? That’s another discussion beyond the point of this missive. At this stage I am only attempting to lay bare this one thought at the feet of leaders like Ravi Zacharias, etc. How do we move from a sort of scientific/rationalist apologetic motif to one that is a moral apologetic? That is not something I have yet figured out in any way shape or form. But recognizing the lack and the need is surely a small and humble step.