Thank You Josh McDowell (sort of)

It is interesting reading and listening to various thoughts about how Christian apologetics plays a role (or not) in our emerging culture today. The overall emerging consensus and voice seems to be leaning towards the belief that a rational and logical presentation of the gospel and the faith to persuade people is not working and not too helpful today. That Josh McDowell's evidential approach and Campus Crusades "Four Spiritual Laws" are not too useful in our emerging post-Christian culture. I totally agree with this and I totally disagree with this.

I agree that apologetics in a post-Christian world is not useful when:

We use apologetics to display the clever answers that we have come up with to prove people wrong: I have met and listened to people into apologetics who seem to delight in arguing with others. It is like they study to get "answers" and their heads fill with knowledge. This new "information" and "evidences" then becomes almost intoxicating to them. They seem to enjoy laying out their logical presentation to others and then with an air of arrogance and smugness fold their arms and declare "I just proved you wrong!" The motive seems more about the winning of the argument than about sharing Jesus' love for people who don't know him.

My heart gets so sad because their attitudes so often seem so darn smug and I don't think they realize how they come across. They say they care, but then I listen to them speak to their Christian friends and fellow apologists and they subtly mock and joke about the poor thinking skills of others. I don't usually hear their hearts breaking for people. It seems like it is more about how pleased they are to have analysed someone's elses thinking and then take pride in how they out-think them. I really wonder if they actually have true relationships with non-Christians sometimes, or do they like just making their presentations to the already-Christians who applaud at their knowledge and affirm how smart they are. But is that the point of apologetics? (( I need to say that I know this isn't the case with every person into apologetics, but it sure seems like a lot of them (us) are like this)).

We use apologetics like bullets to shoot people down: I have met (and sadly in my past, been personally like this at times) where we like to study answers, reasons and evidences and load them up in our gun holsters like bullets. We patrol around our towns looking for any outlaw who disagrees with us. When we see them, we jump off our horse and pull out our apologetical-pistols and shoot them down with our careful and precise aim. Our thinking in this is that we are out to protect the sovereignty of God (as if He needs us to do this for Him). Our trained evidential eyes constantly scan the horizon for anyone who does not hold a Christian worldview (and quite often we also look for fellow Christians who do not hold to our particular branch of theology). We then find them and when we see what we feel is the weakness in their thinking, we pull out our pistol and shoot every little vulnerable soft section of underbelly we see exposed. We blow the smoke after we shoot our pistols, place them back in our holster with a flip and ride off to find the next outlaw who doesn't hold to our truth.

We use apologetics like we are lawyers on a television episode of Law and Order: I think we have felt that if we have a nice slick and logical presentation of what the gospel is, then of course, people will respond. This is like the approach of the "Four Spiritual Laws". I know fully that God has used the Four Spiritual Laws with millions of people and seen wonderful effectiveness with the approach of walking up to people and giving them this tract. But this was primarily with previous generations. I believe the more we live in a post-Christian world, having a nice logical presentation and walking up to strangers to present it to them in a little tract, may not be as effective as in the past.

When we even begin equating spirituality with "Laws", doesn't that immediately reinforce Christianity is "organized religion"? Even the little Four Spiritual Laws tract looks like a legal document or the cover of a term paper. And the rather faded pale orange color of the cover doesn't help much either. I don't sense people want a legal presentation of something "spiritual", and it might even backfire with people in today's culture. We aren't lawyers in a court battle. We also can't with integrity say "God has a wonderful plan for you life" as easy as we used to and not sound rather corny, unrealistic and inauthentic (although I know that was not the intent of when the 4 Spiritual Laws were originally written). I also fully understand millions have been influenced in the 1970's and 80's through this very approach aof the Four Spiritual Laws and I'm sure some do today also. But I do believe as culture changes and values change, that certain approaches also need to match how people process things today and their values in order to best communicate. We were in a culture that valued this type of approach, but in my expereince in over 16 years of ministry - it has shifted. So, I believe apologetics and evangelism in this manner are not too useful in our emerging culture when used like a lawyer making a case in a courtroom.

However, I agree that apologetics in a post-Christian world is useful when:

We use apologetics when people actually ask us for them:

This is where some may disagree with me in some emerging church circles. I am someone who thinks that more than ever today, we do need apologetics. We do need classical Josh McDowell type of apologetics, with reasons, answers, evidences, logical lines of persuasion etc.

But, I don't see using them as we mainly used them in recent years. Most typical apologists have 1 Peter 3:15 as their theme verse. But this verse says "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." It says that we absolutely need to be ready with answers. But it says to give the answers when we are asked. Most of the time it seems we like giving answers when we haven't been asked to give them.

I really do believe emerging generations still want solid reasons, answers and evidences today to understand why Christians believe what they do. I am immersed in relationships with non-Christians, especially in their twenties whom most would consider classically "postmodern". However, in the relationships I have, the proofs and evidences are not what they are looking for at first. We used to use apologetics as part of our initial approach in evangelism. If we can convince them of the logic and reasons of Christianity, then they will believe. I don't see that happening anymore. I rarely ever get asked about these type of things from people outside of the church, until long after the relationship is established.

But..... eventually I do get asked, and that is when apologetics is needed. Eventually, after true Christian hospitality is experienced, after trust is built, after they see and experience the love of Jesus in us - most thinking and intelligent people eventually want to know if there is any validation to what we believe. They want to know if our faith is totally blind faith, or are there any intelligent reasons for believing what we do beside our emotions and feelings?  If they care about us, how can they not want to eventually know why we believe what we believe spiritually and ask us questions?

With every single thinking person I know, eventually it still comes around to at some point where they ask "Why do you believe the Bible is inspired?" "Where did the Bible come from and what makes it any different from other religious documents?" Don't all religions lead to God?" etc.  However, this never comes up at first. As I said, people are first looking to see if as a Christian, are we the jerks they think most of us are? Are we the "crazy American fundamentalists" (as Coldplay singer Chris Martin recently said in a Rolling Stone interview).

I think that the apologetic crusades of the 1970's where people flocked to hear someone debate the faith on secular colleges, is not what in my experience what people outside of the church care about anymore. Christians like these types of things though. So many Christians raised in churches have never been taught apologetics, so when they hear them for the first time it is a thrill and they gain confidence in what they already believe. Most Christian teenagers and college age Christians who were raised in the church, love hearing apologetics to intellectually affirm what they already believe. It is refreshing and new to them. But, I don't think people who aren't Christians are out looking for debates and arguments around "spiritual" issues. In fact, this approach can be very anti-apologetical. Debates, arguments etc. only further prove that Christians are angry people pointing self-righteous fingers at others and always trying to prove others wrong.

However, the reason I really believe we still need apologetics, is that it would be embarrassing to not have an intelligent answer when people do ask us questions. To not have an reasonable answer, will only reaffirm that they think Christians are unintelligent and believe in blind dogmatics. When we say that we believe something, to not know what we really believe and why (beyond just our emotions or feelings of belief) is to not respect another persons intelligence. When someone says why do you feel the Bible is inspired?" I hope we can adequately answer that. When someone asks "Don't all faiths lead to God?" we better have a well thought through compassionate and intelligent response. To not have answers and reasons to these questions, really lessens any right we have to make statements about another person's beliefs. These are the questions that those growing up in our emerging culture are still thinking and asking us when they trust us enough to want an answer. We need to "be prepared to give an answer".

When I hear how some people say that apologetics aren't necessary today or that emerging generations aren't interested in them - I wonder if they really are engaged in any relationships out there with them. As I already said, in my experience with every single person I know, without exception - they all eventually want "reasons" and "evidences" as they ask me why I believe what I believe. How could they not, if they end up trusting and respecting me as a person, and then wonder as a friend why I believe what I do? They sincerely want to know, so I better "be ready" with some intelligent answers. 

We use apologetics and don't see saying "I don't know" as a weakness, but as a strength: I think that a major fault of contemporary apologetics has been how we have taken great mysteries of the faith and turned them into simple little trivial puzzles to solve. Contemporary apologetics subtly indicate that it is a weakness not to have an answer to every question. So we came up with books that have answers for everything. Chapters hitting all the tough questions with tidy answers wrapped up and solved in less than ten pages.

What is embarrassing about this, is that we can't just give quick tidy, and easy answers to a lot of things (most things) as I read in some apologetics books. Only God knows some of the things we claim to know and have solved with answers. I think we have gone too far with a lot of our apologetics and turned the beauty and mystery of God into a 6th grade mathematics equation.

But I still believe we need apologetics today. I was recently talking with a thirty year old manager of a local coffeehouse. We have been getting to know one another over the past year. He is someone who is pluralistic in his viewpoint of religions, and is someone who definitely believes "all religions lead to God" sort of a thing. One time when we were talking, the resurrection of Jesus came up. He asked me if I believed that Jesus really rose from the dead, as he felt it is more of a Aesop's fable type of a story to prove a moral point to early Christians. He was honestly asking me why I believe in the resurrection as a fact.

So, as he asked me, I ended up recalling some of the Josh McDowell writings from years ago on why you can believe the resurrection actually happened. I walked him through how it is truly by faith alone we believe that, yet it is not a totally blind faith we hold to. I then gave him some of the classical evidential Josh McDowell reasons. I also walked through the whole C.S. Lewis "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" deal etc. I also focused on how my life has been changed by the resurrection. But personal testimony is subjective today, as one every late night infomercial, there are testimonies of how lives were changed by all kinds of things and products. The difference in relational apologetics is that people who you are friends with, see it lived out day to day - not just in a quick testimony.

A few days later I saw him again and he told me how he kept thinking about what I said about reasons I believed the resurrection wasn't a fable. He shared how he went home to his parents house that weekend and took a Bible he knew was there. He read the resurrection accounts in the New Testament and then told me that he now believes it really happened and wasn't only a fable. This change of mind on his part, wasn't by argument, or logic, nor by me pushing things or shooting out clever answers. It was primarily through dialog, friendship, and trust built over a year. I also pray for him regularly. Then when he finally did ask me for a "reason", I was able to remember some things Josh McDowell wrote. I didn't just give him an answer of feelings that I have about it, or tell of only an experience I had. Apologetics helped give my friend some confidence that I had more than just blind faith in why I follow Jesus - the resurrected Jesus that he also now believes in.

  I am rambling here, and this is a pretty long post - but I guess I just feel that apologetics are still very much needed in today's emerging culture. We need to have rational answers and logical intelligent reasons. But not in the way we normally have used them in spouting them out to be proving others wrong or giving tidy and absolute answers for things we really don't have answers for. I hope our apologetics foremost do focus on us primarily being the apologetic, by walking in the ways of Jesus, and befriending those who don't know Him. And as they know us and that we follow Jesus, and eventually ask us reasons why or questions - we then have some answers and intelligent reasons to give them. I am truly glad that Josh McDowell and those like him did lay out some good answers to things for us to read. However, I certainly wish Josh would have left some answers with a little more of an admitted mystery regarding that we can't solve all questions that arise too easily and neatly. I wish he wouldn't get so wrapped up in the "absolute truth" sensationalism which causes a fear frenzy among some Christians. But, I am certainly glad he and others like him did do some good thinking for us and give us some answers and reasons we can articulate today in a clear way when people ask like my friend did and some things Josh wrote helped me share about the resurrection and now my friend believes it happened.