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 can be challenging but if anything is to be gained we must find a way to engage the mind of those we speak too.
Apologetics is not confined to defending Christianity because the discipline is an artform that can be used to negotiate any conversation that requires a systematic response to challenge disagreeable preconceptions. A considered response forces the conversation to defend its own entrenched position. Most questions today centre on subjective moral opinions or philosophical views about 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 difficult 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 tone of the conversation, and helps prevent antichristian opinion becoming dismissive. We don’t regularly debate philosophical ideas, and when we do it’s often spontaneous, 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.
I’m not addressing the question of evangelism; it’s about learning truth responses that engage the mind of those who hold a different world view. If anything we’re sowing spiritual seeds that many have little understanding about. The moment we enter a conversation, or respond to questions about life, religion, politics, or any philosophical statement, we’re entering a conversation that demands a response to engage the mind of those we converse with. This is apologetics, and at some point all evangelistic efforts hinge on the same 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 an absolute, to validate the truth in the statement. Consequently, many truth claims on both sides of a debate, must default to faith, as the underlying ethos of the opinion. A clever question conveys that faith in God is no less rational than a subjective secular arguement , and the atheist should apply the same principles to both views. However, without an objective plumbline, the atheist is left with little more than a subjective view of life. We can acknowledge the autonomy of others, to hold different views about the origins of meaning but hold them accountable for their own subjective arguments. 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 a 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 irresistable vacuum, that a well crafted question can engage the mind of those we rub shoulders with.
