![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/NazarethMt.Precipice.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The apologist necessarily has to sometimes<\/em> <\/strong>(reluctantly, unhappily, in a small<\/strong><\/em> number of instances) enter into what many call \u201cnegative\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d territory because we say (just as Jesus and Paul did) that some things or ideas are wrong<\/em>, and people don\u2019t like that in our nicey-nicey, relativistic, supposedly so \u201ctolerant\u201d (but in reality quite the opposite) age.<\/p>\n We condemn errors and show why they are errors out of a motivation of love, because falsehood and sin never helped anyone along on the road to heaven and sanctity. We must do so gently and with love, but it still ruffles feathers in any event.<\/p>\n Thus, what those of a certain prevalent outlook view as a \u201cnegative\u201d undertaking is quite a positive (though at the time, unpleasant and not much fun) endeavor, motivated by love and the desire to see Catholics be happy, fulfilled, and joyous in their walk with Christ in the Catholic Church.<\/p>\n Error and sin (in doctrine and behavior, respectively) must be opposed by anyone who loves God and the Church and the pope and the unity that God intends for us all to have. St. Paul commanded us to oppose it.<\/p>\n People (including myself) love that old saying \u201cYou catch more bees with honey rather than with vinegar.\u201d No doubt, this is true. It\u2019s human nature. But as a full-time apologist I can\u2019t only<\/em><\/strong> do all the nicey nicey stuff that no one would object to. That\u2019s what I\u2019m talking about here: not saying that apologetics has to usually<\/em> cause acrimony, etc.<\/p>\n It would be wonderful to always be \u201cpositive\u201d all the time (I hate friction and conflict as much as anyone), but it\u2019s just not possible in this line of work. I have to also say, \u201cx [idea \/ doctrine] is wrong\u201d and explain why<\/em> (that is the apologetics), and say \u201c[well-known person] y is wrong\u201d and show how and why they are in error. That\u2019s part of the \u201cdeal.\u201d<\/p>\n Jesus and Paul did the same thing. Would we say to them, \u201cjust do all the warm fuzzy \u2018honey\u2019 stuff and forget about rebuking the Pharisees and turning over the tables of the moneychangers and don\u2019t say we should separate from the divisive and the contentious.\u201d?<\/p>\n St. Paul even named names of those who opposed him and who fought against the truth that he was preaching. The names are in the Bible: for all posterity to observe. How \u201cnegative\u201d is that? But for all we know, some of those men may have been saved in the end.<\/p>\n If we made this sort of complaint to Jesus and St. Paul, they would have done all those things anyway, because it was part of their mission. Yet this is frequently expressed to apologists. It\u2019s part of my mission, too, to call a spade a spade and rebuke wrong and harmful behaviors that lead to schism and bad relations within the Church, and to oppose error and show why it is error, and to demonstrate that the Catholic Church offers a true alternative that is far superior.<\/p>\n Some toes get stepped on and feathers ruffled, in so doing; I can\u2019t help that. It\u2019s the nature of the \u201cbeast.\u201d We have to proclaim truth as we see it, according to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, the Bible, and apostolic tradition. That necessarily includes error, and thus we are directly involved in \u201cvinegar\u201d activities.<\/p>\n I would love for it to be otherwise, but it\u2019s my duty to proclaim and defend truth, and that will never be solely<\/em> a \u201cwarm fuzzy\u201d undertaking, no matter how gently and loving it is done by the apologist. It is for those who agree with whatever is being defended, but for those who disagree it is often contentious and sometimes ugly, once they start fighting back against the truths being proclaimed.<\/p>\n It\u2019s part of the apologist\u2019s cross to bear, and we bear it joyfully, with full consent, knowing that it is inevitable. We not only have to be in the middle of many \u201cmessy\u201d controversies (and I absolutely detest<\/em> those, believe me), but also get accused of being contentious ourselves and no different from those whom we oppose, in the very act of opposing the contentiousness and error.<\/p>\n That\u2019s another cross I willingly bear as an apologist, if by that, it means that more people will hear the gospel and the message of the fullness of Christianity to be found in Catholicism. I\u2019ll apply that suffering to the souls I\u2019m trying to reach with the message. It\u2019s all good in the end. God\u2019s providence reigns supreme. Those aspects of my work I don\u2019t enjoy at all, but I still love the work of an apologist overall and wouldn\u2019t trade my life for anything.<\/p>\n We are all most content and fulfilled and joyous in that life that God has assigned to us, by virtue of calling and vocation. St. Paul taught that. Whatever your vocation is, dear reader, I urge you to fulfill it to the fullest.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [the rest below was originally in the combox]<\/p>\n When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, that was a\u201dvinegar\u201d moment. When St. Paul said we should separate from the contentious folks and named names like Alexander the Coppersmith and Hymenaeus, that was a vinegar moment. Jesus said:\u00a0\u201cWoe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets\u201d (Lk 6:26).<\/p>\n I\u2019m all for \u201choney\u201d; try my best to apply it, and I think I do fairly well. But I don\u2019t refuse to do something that needs to be done or said because it is vinegary. For anyone to claim that it is possible to always avoid that is quite naive, in my opinion.<\/p>\n All apologists have made many mistakes, of course. It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that all instances of conflict are our<\/em> fault. Sometimes it is the nature of the beast. We proclaim something that isn\u2019t popular and get an avalanche of insults dumped on our head. Why were all the prophets killed, for heaven\u2019s sake? To say that every time there is conflict, it\u2019s because we<\/em> screwed up, and never because telling the truth caused friction<\/em>, is simplistic.<\/p>\n I\u2019m all for honey (the more the merrier). But we can\u2019t avoid all<\/em> conflict as apologists. Jesus was perfect and He encountered plenty of opposition. He was accused of being demon-possessed, being mad, and was eventually murdered. Thus, we can\u2019t say it was because He failed in His approach: didn\u2019t use enough \u201choney.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m criticizing the view, prevalent in our society, that almost makes \u201cniceness\u201d an idol, as if there is never unpleasantness when Christianity is proclaimed. It\u2019s being nice to a fault<\/em>: refusing to also be confrontational against error<\/em> where necessary.\u00a0We are to imitate both Jesus and Paul (Paul said so many times). That includes everything they did. Sometimes they did the more \u201cnegative\u201d (so-called) things.<\/p>\n We can avoid it if we simply write articles and don\u2019t directly interact with those in opposing camps. But the more one does the latter, it is inevitable that conflict and insults will come, just as with Jesus and Paul. Paul was stoned several times, run out of town; he was subject to all sorts of persecution.<\/p>\n Now how is it that if we are truly following his example, as the greatest evangelist of all time, that we don\u2019t encounter serious opposition? Its perfectly to be expected<\/em>. Jesus told His disciples matter-of-factly that they would be opposed, and when that happened, to \u201cshake the dust off of your feet.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s impossible, in other words, to follow the biblical model, and Jesus and Paul, and not encounter significant opposition, that is not<\/em>\u00a0merely due to our own shortcomings. Other times, it is our<\/em> fault because we<\/em> screwed up. I just apologized last week to two people, for excessive language. I screwed up. But I wound up on cordial terms with both men.<\/p>\n All apologists who have made a significant impact have been attacked. I see Scott Hahn regularly attacked, and have defended him several times myself. Michael Voris went after Keating and Staples and Akin and Al Kresta and others, implying that they put money above the proclamation of truth and were compromised; wouldn\u2019t speak out against the problems in the Church. I defended them in person: trying to reason with Voris about it in his own office. It was perfectly cordial. We didn\u2019t end with a fistfight.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0I like the guy, personally. He\u2019s very charming. But I don\u2019t always like what he says in his videos.<\/p>\n James White the anti-Catholic regularly slanders any apologist who comes along his path, including Pat Madrid: whom I think is the \u201cgentlest\u201d of all of us. It\u2019s all part of it. Because I have directly confronted these anti-Catholics, and atheists, and radical Catholic reactionaries, I get called all sorts of names and have all kinds of things said about me.\u00a0I relish a good debate and dialogue, but I do not<\/em> <\/strong>ever relish conflict. I have to be involved in it at times, for the sake of my work, and souls.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not disagreeing that the apologist should be nice and gentle. Of course they should. I\u2019ve never said otherwise, and I think I live that out, for the most part. I disagree with the extreme<\/em> of the position, which holds that every time there is conflict, it\u2019s because we\u2019ve screwed-up. That just ain\u2019t biblical and it ain\u2019t reality.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t relish \u201ccombat\u201d; I relish truth and am willing to sometimes (reluctantly) engage in \u201ccombat\u201d of a sort in order to further it, just as Jesus and Paul and St. Francis de Sales and any other evangelists \/ apologists were. Huge<\/em> difference.<\/p>\n Nor does the Christian in general usually \u201crelish\u201d suffering. But if we know anything about the faith, we are willing to embrace it for a higher purpose. Doesn\u2019t mean we \u201crelish\u201d it: unless we are on a very high plane of spirituality (that I am far far<\/em><\/strong> from).<\/p>\n Why all this hostility towards us evangelists and apologists and indeed, any Christian who tries to \u201cwalk the walk and talk the talk\u201d? Is it solely because we\u2019re jerks and obnoxious? Jesus never indicates as much. He connects the hatred of us directly with hatred of Him<\/em><\/a>. It\u2019s because of the message. It\u2019s to be expected. Jesus warned about the opposite being the problem (spoken well of by all), not that we would be hated because were were loudmouthed jerks.<\/p>\n This has to be reckoned with. If we\u2019re not encountering serious opposition, we need to examine ourselves seriously to figure out why that is: what we are doing wrong, so as to avoid the persecution that Jesus said would inevitably come.<\/p>\n We mustn\u2019t fall into the error of thinking that we can never be firm or offer tough love or rebuke or condemn, because it isn\u2019t \u201cnice\u201d etc. That\u2019s simply not biblical or Catholic, as I have argued.<\/p>\n The biblical, apostolic way is to meet each situation with the response that is appropriate<\/em> for it. It varies. When people resisted the truth, Jesus and the apostles were quite firm and (in today\u2019s warped mentality) \u201cintolerant.\u201d<\/p>\n The problem, oftentimes, is that our particular temperaments line up in one way or the other, and we find it difficult to change according to circumstance. The gentle, soft-spoken person by nature will find it very difficult to be firm and offer a rebuke, whereas the blunt, outspoken personality finds it difficult to be habitually gentle (which should be the norm). The same problem occurs in families. The \u201cnice\u201d and gentle father finds it very hard to discipline children as he should; the wife given to nagging finds it difficult to cease doing that, etc.<\/p>\n Yet we see Jesus and Paul doing both<\/em> things (God is both a loving merciful God and a judge) and they are our models. It\u2019s quite clear in Scripture. We have to follow that model rather than the cultural model and the zeitgeist which are trendy and fashionable and oh-so-popular at any given time.<\/p>\n I totally oppose apologists (mostly amateurs, doing it on the side) who give us a bad name, with their triumphalist, chest-puffing nonsense. I have to deal with that baggage all the time, because people project it onto me, where it is not present.\u00a0So we full-time, professional apologists detest the abuse of our field more than anyone else, since we have to live with the negative results of it almost daily.<\/p>\n We should never be abusive or insulting towards persons<\/em> at all; only their positions<\/em> (if manifestly false). But at times it is a very<\/em> fine line, that we all struggle with in conflicts. The bare minimum is to at least acknowledge the ideal<\/em> to strive after.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Passionate Defense of Religious Truths: The Biblical Data<\/a>\u00a0[6-4-07]<\/p>\n Apologetics is Always a Difficult Spiritual Battle & Struggle<\/a>\u00a0[8-30-11]<\/p>\n \u201cHated by All\u201d, Catholic Evangelism, & the Fullness of Truth: Is it Possible for an Orthodox, Morally Traditional Catholic, Who Shares the \u201cUnabridged\u201d Catholic Message, to be Rapturously Loved and Liked by One and All Radically Secularist Leftists and Atheists?<\/a>\u00a0[2-13-17]<\/p>\n Did Jesus, St. Paul, & the Prophets Use Sarcasm? Yes\u00a0<\/a>[8-16-17]<\/p>\n Some Thoughts on Evangelism and Being \u201cHated by All\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 7-20-18]<\/p>\n \u201cHate the Sin, Love the Sinner\u201d: Biblical & Christlike?<\/a>\u00a0[8-21-18]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally 3-11-14 on Facebook)<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Mark10:43<\/a>\u00a0(5-25-10).\u00a0Mt. Precipice near Nazareth, where the angry crowd attempted to throw Jesus off the cliff (Lk 4:24-30)<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The apologist necessarily has to sometimes (reluctantly, unhappily, in a small number of instances) enter into what many call \u201cnegative\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d territory because we say (just as Jesus and Paul did) that some things or ideas are wrong, and people don\u2019t like that in our nicey-nicey, relativistic, supposedly so \u201ctolerant\u201d (but in reality quite […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":35142,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[2347,4428,4429,2332,329,94,2538,2537,93,2019],"class_list":["post-35136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-catholic-apologetics","tag-apologetics","tag-bible-apologetics","tag-biblical-rationale-for-apologetics","tag-catholic-apologetics","tag-christian-apologetics","tag-debate","tag-defense-of-christianity","tag-defense-of-the-catholic-faith","tag-dialogue","tag-lay-catholic-apologetics"],"yoast_head":"\n