Simply Apologetics
Western culture resembles little of the religious culture that existed at the time of Jesus, and the majority of people we rub shoulders with have only a conceptual affinity to matters of faith and religion. In general, we live in an amoral, hedonistic culture, where the majority of discussion revolves around personal rights, emotional preference, and subjective supposition. Entering a conversation in defence of a Christian worldview will be tenuous at best, and must begin by engaging the mind of those we hope to reach.
Apologetics is not confined to defending Christianity because the discipline can be used to negotiate any conversation that requires a systematic argument to defend a position. The function of apologetics is to provide a rational means of negotiating an argument against the Christian faith and matters related to the meaning and purpose of life. Most questions today centre on subjective moral precepts or philosophical opinions of life, and therefore no more valid, than a Christian worldview. Ironically, this is not an area that most Christians feel comfortable engaging in but it’s only by engagement that we learn to navigate arguments against the Christian faith. Apologetics was the foundation of almost every statement Jesus made, especially when he conversed with non-believers and the religious leaders of the day.
There are few variations to questions that arise from non-believers, and one learned response can be applied to several questions. How we enter a discussion is critical, because it guides the temper of the discussion, and helps prevent opinion sinking into emotional cliche. On a daily basis we don’t generally debate philosophical ideas, and when we do it’s often spontaneous, and unexpected, and without a planned response. Christians must learn a biblical world view about questions that may arise, and a predetermined response helps us express this view.
This series is not addressing the question of evangelism; it’s about learning truth responses that engage the mind of those who hold a different world view. The moment we enter a conversation, or respond to questions about life, religion, or any philosophical statement, we’re instigating a conversation that demands a well thought out response. This is apologetics, and at some point all evangelistic efforts hinge on it's fundamentals.
Many situations present an opportunity to share a Christian world view, and without exception, everyone makes absolute truth statements, about subjective views on life. But truth statements demand a justifiable absolute, to validate a truth in the statement. Consequently, many of the truth claims from both sides of the debate, must default to faith, as the under-girding source of opinion. What apologetics attempts to convey, is that faith in God is no less rational than secular humanism, and the atheist should apply the same rational principles to both views. However, without a theistic world view, the atheist is left with an autonomous and subjective view of life, and ironically we often find this invalidated by not acknowledging the autonomy of others, to hold a different view. Without exception, everyone lives by an established set of moral and ethical values, but within the framework of community, a subjective personal view about how to live our lives, is often impossible to practice, unless everyone agrees. Thus, much of what society views as right, true, or moral, is subject to change, and often dictated by statutory law.
In most cases the vernacular surrounding right and wrong, is more about defending moral preference, at the expense of those who disagree. The irony is that humanity at its core, wants something to believe in as long as this doesn’t include a God. Here lies the vacuum, where rational argument might at least engage the mind of those we rub shoulders with.
