The Problems and Possibilities of Christian Apologetics
Recently a very popular Christian apologist (defender of the faith) named Ravi Zacharias passed away. I did not know him and this post is not about him. All I know is that many people thought very highly of him and will miss him.
His passing, however, has caused me to think again about Christian apologetics in general. Why do I not write apologetics? Besides here, I mean.
As I see it, anyway, the problem with Christian apologetics is that, too often, anyway, it claims to accomplish too much. I do not think even the best argument can persuade a reluctant person to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as “evidence that demands a verdict” or a knock-down, drag-out proof that leaves no room for Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith.”
At the end of every argument for the truth of Christianity lies a gulf, a gap, that can only be crossed by an act of faith, of commitment. American philosopher William James talked about the “will to believe.” Without the will to believe, apologetics fails. How can one have the will to believe—in Jesus Christ as God and Savior? Only the Holy Spirit can provide it.
Suppose someone does “become a Christian” solely, exclusively in an intellectual way—on the basis of arguments and evidences. Is he or she now really a Christian? Yes and no. Yes in the sense of having the right state of mind, mental condition, at least with regard to some facts about God and Jesus and perhaps himself/herself. No in the sense of having that which is most crucial to true Christianity, heart-felt commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So do I oppose apologetics? Yes and no. Yes if it means the attempt to prove Christianity true with the result that a smart person who hears or reads the argument(s) will become a Christian. No if it means the attempt to remove false cognitive stumbling blocks to faith that have been placed in the path of someone sincerely wanting to be a Christian (at first or continuing).
That is what apologetics is good for—demonstrating using reason—evidence and logic—that Christianity is not false, mythical, stupid or dangerous. In fact, I believe it is possible to demonstrate rationally that the overall, general Christian worldview has greater explanatory power than any competing worldview.
However, without the Holy Spirit working through the demonstration, nothing of any great spiritual importance will be achieved—except possibly the removal of false stumbling blocks placed in people’s path toward faith.
Too many Christian apologists forget the Holy Spirit entirely.
A real problem with much Christian apologetics is the assumption (implied if not stated) that there are certain arguments for the truth of Christianity that, if articulated well, can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I said above, I believe a case CAN be made (rarely is made well) that the basic, general Christian worldview has greater explanatory power than its competitors. However, that procedure falls short of proof. It has its place and can have value, but it does not constitute proof.
Many arguments used by rationalistic Christian apologists have “holes” that any bright, perceptive critic can easily notice and point out. No argument for the existence of God, for example, is fool proof; every one has some Achilles Heel that can be found and used against it. All contain hidden assumptions. If a person agrees with the assumption of an argument for God’s existence, then it might work to persuade him or her to be open to the idea that God (or a god) exists.
On the other hand, the same is true of all arguments that are a posteriori as opposed to a priori and even the best a priori arguments that aim at synthetic truth (as opposed to analytic truth) fall short of absolute proof. Kant’s whole philosophical project centered around the attempt to discover synthetic propositions that are true a priori. For example: All things known will be ordered in time and space (the two categories of understanding). But these—time and space—are (for Kant) part of the mind’s equipment; whether they are “real” outside the mind is unknowable. So the argument that this is true a priori depends on the validity of the critical idealism of Kant’s philosophy which was a response to Hume’s skepticism.
At the end of the day, the best argument for God’s existence is that presented by Catholic theologian Hans Kung (there should be an umlaut over the “u” but my word processor today won’t put on there!) which is that you must choose between believing in God and being a nihilist. I believe that works. But as Kung himself said, this is at best an “indirect proof” of God’s existence and works ONLY because hardly anyone admits to being a true nihilist. Therefore, they are assuming God’s (or something like God’s) existence whether they know or admit it (even to themselves) or not.
The problem with this is that many, many modern Western people are willing to be nihilists under the guise of adopting some kind of utilitarian ethic. A perfect illustration of this KIND of problem is the American television program (situation comedy) The Big Bang Theory where the hedonistic main characters often struggle over ethical issues without any basis for there being any real distinction between good and bad, right and wrong. For example, for them it is unethical to sleep with someone else’s girlfriend or boyfriend but not unethical to sleep with many people—so long as none of them are in a “committed relationship” however loosely committed it may be. Because they are all practical atheists or agnostics, there is no absolute foundation for this sexual ethic and yet they ACT as if there is one. They are inconsistent hedonists or perhaps inconsistent theists (without knowing it).
So, to draw this essay to a close, apologetics has some value in certain situations (spelled out above). But it cannot achieve spiritual transformation without the Holy Spirit. And ultimately, what the Holy Spirit MUST do to bring a person to authentic Christian commitment is convincingly convict him or her of his or her personal need of a savior. This apologetics alone cannot do.
*Note to commenters: I never speak here for anyone but myself. If you decide to respond follow these rules: Do not include a hyperlink; be brief, concise and to the point; remain civil and kind; give reasons (do not just make assertions); stay on topic and do not go off on a tangent; remember that this is not a place fo you to promote your own alternative view. This blog is meant for evangelical Christians; others are welcome to ask questions better to understand evangelical Christianity. It is not a place for debate about incommensurable world views or theologies.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In