January 27, 2022

Are You a Pure Apologist?

January 27, 2022/ T. J. Gentry

Purity is a fascinating thing. Perhaps you’ve never thought about it in terms of a definition, but according to one dictionary something that is pure is “without any extraneous or unnecessary elements.” Think of how important purity is in everyday life. What would we do without pure water, or, to think of it in a negative way, would we want to drink impure water? What about pure air? Impurities in the air cause serious problems, don’t they? On and on I could go with examples of the importance of purity in everyday life, but I want to think with you for a moment about purity as it relates to apologists. Right away, you might ask how the two relate. You likely think of purity in the moral realm, at least I hope you do, but what about purity in other areas? What about the intellect, the method, the vision of an apologist? Is there anything important to consider in these areas? I think there is, and with this in mind, I want to consider what it means to be a “pure” apologist by focusing on four areas: 1) intellectual purity; 2) methodological purity; 3) visional purity; and 4) moral purity.

Before we go further, a quick qualifier is in order concerning how I will use purity in these instances. I realize, as I am sure you do, that we all carry the vestigial remains of our fallenness in each of these areas and that absolute purity is not something we can achieve in this life. Also, I am not trying to impinge on the individuality of each apologist, deny freedom of expression and the uniqueness each of us possesses in conducting our work, or mandate an inflexible and wooden black-and-white/either-or approach. I do, however, want to challenge every apologist to consider how they might avoid, to hearken back to the definition of purity given above, bringing “extraneous or unnecessary elements” into their practice of defending the faith.

Intellectual Purity

Intellectual purity for apologists means two things, as I see it. First, making sure that we know the facts of a particular argument or position and guarding those facts by not allowing unrelated matters or secondary concerns to come into our considerations. For example, when arguing for the veracity of the New Testament, make sure to stay with the germane and reliable evidence in our favor. Don’t chase rabbit trails, fun as that may sometimes be. Staying intellectually pure in this way helps focus the argument and such focus gives it greater power. Second, intellectual purity for an apologist can relate to the discipline of regularly feeding the mind with good apologetic material. I make it a regular habit to read and reread the books by Dave Baggett, keeping my mind fresh on the details of his immensely helpful approach to making a moral argument. Remember, apologist, our commitment to ongoing intellectual development and purity is one of the ways the Lord continually renews our minds.

Methodological Purity

Methodological purity for apologists is, first, to learn and apply the basic skills of argumentation without becoming argumentative and divisive. My preference is to argue abductively (most of the time), and to do so in a very gentle and giving manner. Nothing turns a questioner away from us and our Lord more quickly than a heavy-handed, dogmatic approach when making our case. Further, if you are an evidentialist, then be an evidentialist. If a classical apologist, then be a classical apologist. Rarely is an apologist able to move in and out of different apologetic methodologies without diluting their presentations and confusing their hearers. Pick a camp and, if possible, stay in it. This helps your skill as a defender, and we all should want to be skilled. Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking your method is the only or best method. Choose your approach and hold it lightly. Do hold it, but remember the method is the vehicle, and there are numerous ways to get there.

Visional Purity

Visional purity speaks to the need to stay focused on the goal, which is the person and the glory of God. We are not given the high calling as apologists to win arguments. We are called to win people. Don’t confuse the two, or you will find yourself, as one of the elders in a church I served years ago said, “right but alone.” Also, keep your vision as an apologist rigidly fixed on the glory of God and showing Him love by loving others in the process. It’s easy to miss this last point, especially if we reduce those we engage to the status of opponents. You’ve never met an opponent; not really. You have, however, met those for whom Jesus died and for whom He longs to have a relationship. Keep that at the forefront of your minds and hearts, friends.

Moral Purity

If the enemy of our souls cannot corrupt our intellect he will go after our morals. This is axiomatic in the apologetic realm, and there is no more direct route to ineffectiveness and disqualification as an apologist than to compromise yourself morally. Seek holiness above all else and you will be far less likely to disparage the message and dishonor the Savior. Because apologists spend so much time in the rational and objective realms of evidence and logical discourse, it can be easy to neglect the development of the heart. Don’t fall prey to the sin that wants to dominate you and silence your witness. In the end, it doesn’t matter how smart you are if you are morally impure.

In closing, I hope you will consider a bit from C. S. Lewis’s third letter from Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood. In giving counsel on how to best manage the unfortunate effects of Wormwood’s charge having recently converted to Christianity, Screwtape reminds him to “aggravate that most useful human characteristic, the horrors and neglect of the obvious.” Apologists I trust it is obvious we need to guard purity of intellect, method, vision, and morality. May God help us do so.

Dr. Thomas J. Gentry (aka., TJ Gentry) serves as the pastor of First Christian Church of West Frankfort, Illinois, the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, and Executive VP of Bellator Christi Ministries. Dr. Gentry is a world-class scholar holding 5 doctorate degrees and 6 masters degrees. Additionally, he is a prolific writer as he has published 7 books including Pulpit Apologist, Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord, and You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel. Be on the lookout for two additional books that he will soon publish. In addition to his impressive resume, Dr. Gentry proudly served his country as an officer in the United States Army and serves as a martial arts instructor.

November 25, 2021

5 Reasons Every Apologist Should Be Confident and Grateful

November 25, 2021/ T. J. Gentry

I want to tell you a bit of my personal story about how and why I became interested in apologetics. The year was 1988. I was in my first year of undergraduate studies, and it was my first day in the Philosophy 101 class at the community college I attended. I arrived at class early, sat near the front as was my custom, and waited for the professor to arrive. The class was full, about twenty-five students. I was 18 years old and serving as a youth minister, having already been preaching since I was fourteen. I was confident in my faith and had, until that time, not really faced any substantive challenges or obstacles related to Christian teaching or practice. Honestly, I had only heard of apologetics in passing, and philosophy was not something I had ever studies. I was only in the class because it was a general education requirement for my degree plan. So, there I sat on day one of the class, not really knowing what to expect and certainly not prepared for what was about to happen. The professor entered the room, and everyone quieted down as he walked to the board. Without any greeting, he took a piece of chalk and began writing. He wrote the following sentence on the board: The Bible is full of errors. After he finished writing, the professor turned, leaned over his desk and toward all of us and said, “If you are here and you disagree with this statement, I will show you this semester why you are wrong. Does anyone want to challenge me?” I sat in stunned silence along with the rest of the students, and then someone in the back of the room spoke out sheepishly in response to the professor. “The Bible is God’s Word and I believe it. You are wrong, professor.” More silence followed as the professor looked at the student with something of an incredulous smirk on his face. Finally, he replied to the student. “Is that all you can say? Really? I am a convinced atheist, and your response only confirms why I should be one. Christianity is nothing but a pack of lies.”

The student said nothing. The professor then rattled off a litany of reasons he “knew” the Bible was wrong. There are contradictions. We do not have the original writings. The message changed to meet political and social needs. Jesus was a myth. There was no God because evolution had disproven his existence. On and on he went, and with each statement I felt something I had never felt before. With each of the professor’s statements I felt a heaviness settling on my mind and heart. By the time the professors stopped speaking, it was like a dark cloud hung over the room, and I seemed to be sitting all alone in the darkness. My heart was racing. My throat was dry. My emotions were a mixed bag of anger and frustration. My mind froze for a moment, and then a thought formed as I sat there. A question. “What,” I thought, “if he is right? What if the Bible really is full of errors? What if my Christianity is false?” The questions reverberated in my whole being, and with each reverberation I slipped deeper and deeper into what seemed an abyss of helplessness and doubt. By the time the class ended I had an overwhelming sense of paralysis in my mind. By the end of the day, I was in full-on depression that only got worse with time. I was in trouble, and I knew it, but I did not know what to do about it. Over the next weeks every class with the professor only made my situation worse, and by the end of the term I was in full-blown crisis mode. My whole life seemed in jeopardy, and I began going to very dark and desperate places in my mind. I dreaded being alone with my thoughts, and I eventually began to contemplate suicide. I wanted to die rather than live with this doubt about what I had—at least until that class began—considered the most central thing in all of mine and anyone else’s life. My faith was crumbling, and I was unsure what to do, nor was I certain that anything could be done.

One Saturday afternoon in early summer, still reeling from the class with the hostile professor, I drove to a remote location near a local lake. I sat in my car, gripping the steering wheel, and shaking. I said nothing for a moment until I could bear it no longer. Then I yelled out, “God, if you will not stop this struggle in my mind, I am going to kill myself! Please, help me! That was it. I sat there a bit longer, then drove home with the same burden and depression. Another week went by, and I had found no relief. Then, in a conversation with one of the men I knew in a local church, I received a life-changing question. I was not lamenting my situation to the other man, as I had already concluded it was hopeless. I was still thinking of suicide, and I was becoming more deeply depressed by the day. I had lost interest in my regular activities. No joy in leading the youth group. No desire to read the Bible or pray. No motivation to preach or evangelize. Nothing but crippling doubt. Yet here I was in this conversation and the man asked me, “Have you ever heard of apologetics? I ask because I found a really informative book on it, and I thought you might be interested.” My mind raced again, though this time there was something odd about the feeling. It was as though the question from the man opened a door slightly and a light began to creep into the room of my soul. I could not explain it at the time, but it was something I had not felt in a long while. I took the bait of the question and responded, “Never heard of it. What is apologetics?” Looking at me with a rather stunned expression, he said, “Well, apologetics is the defense of the faith. You know, things like giving answers to challenges to God’s existence and the Bible…stuff like that.” I sat there not knowing what to say next, and it must have been obvious to the man to whom I was talking. After an awkward pause, he said, “Here. Read this. It’s all about those things.” He handed me a book entitled Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

At first, I just sat there in silence with what I suspect was a confused look on my face. Eventually, I accepted the book with a meager expression of thanks and the conversation ended. I took the book home and began to read…and read…and read. The book answered every question the professor raised and dozens more, and every answer resounded with evidence from history and science and…philosophy. To my amazement, the book included philosophical reasoning to answer the challenges I received from my atheist philosophy professor. As they say, “the rest of the story” is that I read the book from cover to cover, and then again, and again. By the time I made my way through the material McDowell presented I had a visceral sense of two things: my faith was defensible, and my hope was returning. Fast forward to today, and I have since spent thousands of hours studying apologetics and challenges to the Christian faith. What started as a catastrophe of faith became a triumph. Obviously, I did not kill myself. In fact, apologetics is something that—then and now—has become a source of experiencing a deep and abiding life as a Christian. Apologetics made the difference. I want to say that again. Apologetics made the difference.

Thus, as I write this today over 30 years later, I thought it apropos to share with you what I believe are five reasons every apologist should be confident and grateful. My list is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it intended as an apologetic argument for any of the five topics. It is, however, a call to persevering gratitude for all of us who have struggled, are struggling, or will struggle with the challenges posed by an unrelenting attack on Christian truth by secular culture and Satan. My hope is that you will consider these five reasons and find a cause for joyful doxology as you remind yourself that there is much to be confident of and to give God praise for in your Christian faith. To that end, I urge you to be thankful, defender!

Be Thankful for a Reasonable Faith: The Christian faith is not one of blind, irrational leaps into believing without evidence. Rather, the Christian faith stands firm on robust experience based on rational thought and defensible claims. Faith and reason give us wings to fly to the bulwark of truth found in the Gospel. Be thankful, defender! Ours is a reasonable faith.
Be Thankful for Natural Theology: God gave us two books, one in nature and one in Scripture. We may be ‘Bible Ultimately’ people, but we enjoy an abundance of revelation in the world around us and the image of God within us. Natural theology is a veritable bounty of pointers to the one true God’s existence, and it is ours to enjoy as the heavens declare the glory of God. Be thankful defender! Nature is on our side.
Be Thankful for a Trustworthy Bible: Contrary to my professor’s claims, the Bible is not full of contradictions and errors. There is not a single instance—not one—where criticisms of the Bible stand up to scrutiny and careful investigation. God’s word is settled in the heavens and defensible on earth. Be thankful, defender! Ours is a trustworthy Bible.
Be Thankful for Resurrection Evidence: Countless critics attack Christianity at its very heart, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet, the evidence is resounding from the echo of the empty tomb to the eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus to the transformed lives of James, Paul, and countless others. We do not just make the claim Jesus rose from the dead; we can defend it with ample evidence. Be thankful, defender! Jesus rose from the dead.
Be Thankful for Your Fellow Apologists: What would have become of my life without Josh McDowell and the countless other apologists before him and since who have labored to give a reason charitably and articulately for the hope that is in them? No Christian ever needs feel left alone in the battle for faith. We truly stand on the shoulders of those giants of Christian apologetics who have gone before us, and the fruits of their labors are ours to learn and deploy. Be thankful, defender! The apologetic army of the ages is strong.

Stand firm, brothers and sisters, and always be grateful and confident in the faith once delivered.

About the Author

https://www.amazon.com/Pulpit-Apologist-between-Preaching-Apologetics/dp/1532695047/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=pulpit+apologist&qid=1632093760&sr=8-3

Diving Deeper

T. J. Gentry, “Progressing Toward Destruction,” BellatorChristi.com (10/11/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/10/11/progressing-toward-destruction/

Brian Chilton and Curtis Evelo, Interview with T. J. Gentry, PhD, DMin, “SIS S1 E6 Pulpit Apologist,” BellatorChristi.com (8/1/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/01/sis-s1-e6-pulpit-apologist-w-dr-thomas-j-gentry/

November 11, 2021

According to His Righteousness

November 11, 2021/ T. J. Gentry

I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness. (Psalm 7:17a)

Have you ever found it difficult to stay focused during a worship service? You should be singing, or agreeing in prayer, or preparing to commune, but all you seem to notice is everything happening around you.

Rather than the words of the song, you notice the voice of the person next to you, or across the sanctuary. They are loud or off-key and you are distracted. Rather than joining your heart to the prayer offered by another, you find yourself counting how many times they say “um” or “just” or some other word or phrase. They appear to stumble through a prayer, and you are distracted. Rather than giving yourself wholly to the moment of communion as you receive the bread and cup, your thoughts turn to how so-and-so sitting in front of you is moving around. They fidget, and you are distracted.

All this opportunity for worship – the singing, the prayer, the communion - and there you are out of focus and out of sorts.

This happens. To all of us. Maybe more than we want to admit.

Yet, on the one hand this is part of worship in an imperfect setting, part of worship this side of heaven. So, a certain amount of distraction is to be expected, even embraced as a reminder that we aren’t in heaven yet.

However, there is something we can do to help with what we find distracting during worship. I don’t mean go across the sanctuary and tell the loud and off-key singer to quiet down. I don’t mean pull aside the one praying with “ums” and “justs” and instruct them in proper address to the Almighty, and I certainly don’t mean grab the shoulder of the person in front of you who struggles to sit still during communion.

What we need to do to overcome distractions is remember that the focus of our worship is on God and His righteousness. There are plenty of times in Scripture when the Lord decides to correct worshipers, and unless He is showing up in your service to correct the singing and praying and communion follies, then perhaps your best approach is to simply ask Him to help you get your eyes off the imperfect around you (and in you) so that you can look to Him and praise Him for who He is.

Sounds simple enough, and you may be tempted to doubt if it works.

It does. I promise.

As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that someone has asked God to help them get their eyes off you during a worship service so that they can better focus on Him. They see you wince over the singing you don’t like. They notice your change in position when the prayer falls into repetitious words. They see you fidget with frustration when someone around you can’t sit still during communion. The same thing they ask of God when they see you and are distracted by you is what we should all ask of Him.

Lord, will you kindly help us praise You according to Your righteousness?

T. J. Gentry is the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, the Senior Minister at First Christian Church of West Frankfort, IL, and the Co-founder of Good Reasons Apologetics. T. J. has been in Christian ministry since 1984, having served as an itinerant evangelist, youth minister, church planter, pastoral counselor, and Army chaplain. He is the author of numerous books and peer-reviewed articles, including Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2020), You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel (Illative House, 2018), and two forthcoming works published by Moral Apologetics Press: Leaving Calvinism, Finding Grace, and A Moral Way: Aquinas and the Good God. T. J. is a Clinical Pastoral Education Supervisor, holding board-certification as a Pastoral Counselor and a Chaplain. He is a graduate of Southern Illinois University (BA in Political Science), Luther Rice College and Seminary (MA in Apologetics), Holy Apostles College and Seminary (MA in Philosophy), Liberty University (MAR in Church Ministries, MDiv in Chaplaincy, ThM in Theology), Carolina University (DMin in Pastoral Counseling, PhD in Leadership, PhD in Biblical Studies), and the United States Army Chaplain School (Basic and Advanced Courses). He is currently completing his PhD in Theology at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (2021), his PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (2022), and his PhD in Philosophy of Religion at Southern Evangelical Seminary (2024). T. J. married Amy in 1995, and they are blessed with three daughters and two sons. T. J.’s writing and other projects may be viewed at TJGentry.com.

November 04, 2021

I am Samson (Judges 14)

November 04, 2021/ T. J. Gentry

Samson. Aaah, Samson.

In Judges 14 he comes off the page to me as a larger-than-life contradiction. Read it. I suspect you’ll see it too.

Samson is a true enigma. A man used by God who also appears to use God. At least that’s what it looks like to me. His details in this chapter baffle me, starting with telling his parents to "get her for me" when he decides he wants a wife from the Philistines. Then the tearing apart of the lion, the eating of the honey, the posing of the riddle, the manipulative tears of his wife, the killing of 30 men, and finally Samson gives his wife to his best man. Again, Samson baffles me.

But then I have to ask why he baffles me. Why do I struggle with Samson?

Is it his insistence on what he wants, even when it is driven by what appears to be a simple lust of the eyes? But I am just like him sometimes. I see with my eyes only, then expect those around me to give me what I want. I am Samson.

Maybe it is the way that God's purposes are working out in Samson, even though the details of his life leave me wondering at times if he even knows God? Then I hear the echo of my own life in that very description...God working through me though sometimes my life does anything but point to Him. I am Samson.

Perhaps my struggle with Samson is the way the power of God flows to and through him even when his choices cause others to suffer? He can't keep his secret from his wife, so 30 men die as a consequence. Yet, I think of the times I preach or teach or counsel--God working through me in each instance. Then I go home and have no patience with my family. I yell at my wife. I justify my selfishness as a matter of collateral damage in service to Jesus. Others suffer as God uses me. I am Samson.

Yes, I am Samson. At least sometimes I am Samson. The funny thing is that the longer I live the more I realize that I can be Samson...I have been Samson...I am Samson, and even still I want to be someone else. I want to be more like Jesus and less like Samson, and that's a good thing. Perhaps a bit simplistic or naive, but still a good thing. Actually, what is good about it is that I see myself in Samson, but I also see God in Samson.

To be sure, Samson's foibles and frailties are his own...his contradictions are his and nobody else's, but those moments of wisdom and power and justice...those are God's. Samson shows me God through his brokenness, and I am grateful. I see the same thing happening in my life. I am Samson.

July 21, 2021

My Dear Apologist, Please Be Holy.

July 21, 2021/ T. J. Gentry

My Dear Apologist Please, Be Yourself (1).png

Apologist, I have a question for you. If forced to choose, which would you rather have, holiness or a good answer? Should be obvious which one to choose, right? Of course, we should want to be holy more than we want good answers. Further, it’s not as though holiness and good answers are opposed to one another, are they? But I have noticed a disturbing tendency in apologists over the years, a tendency toward separating the work of the craft of apologetics and the work of moral transformation. Apologists sometimes abound in facts, arguments, and answers, all the while lacking in any deliberate expression of personal holiness. So, I say to you: my dear apologist, please be holy.

Here are two instances where I think we have room to grow in our holiness as apologists. These are what I would call examples of “practical apologetic holiness.” First, there is a holy and unholy way to present an opponent’s position on a given topic of debate. It is unholy to replace what an unbeliever said with a strawman. When we do this, we are bearing false witness; we are lying. Nothing holy about that, is there? Rather than giving in to this foolish and sinful temptation, why not take the honorable and holy route of always…and I mean always…presenting the best argument an opponent has to offer. Jesus did not die to save strawmen, but He did die to save that person whose argument we should learn and carefully present. So, learn what the atheist is saying, and then, with a commitment to bearing true witness and honoring the One who is truth Himself, show practical apologetic holiness by giving your opponent an honest and faithful representation.

Second, there is a holy and unholy way to present an argument. For example, anytime I stoop to make an ad hominem argument I am not arguing in a holy way. Even if my opponent is a truly unsavory character whose moral compass is clearly broken, it is not honoring to God, or my opponent, or myself to make a personal attack rather than a careful and charitable argument based on the substance of their ideas. When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks it reveals a lack of appreciation for the very sacredness of the moment when one person’s ideas are considered against another’s. Every encounter in apologetics is with an image bearer of God, one whose existence is precious and of infinite worth, such that to encounter an opponent of the Gospel is to encounter the reason there is a Gospel. We all need the grace of God, and when I don’t take seriously the argument of a person and choose, instead, to attack them for some real or perceived personal shortcoming I sully the moment and demean the holy work of apologetics. We are seeking to build relationships and see lives transformed, not win arguments at any cost; and only when we make arguments and refuse to ever attack people can we show practical apologetic holiness.

I’m sure you can think of other instances of practical apologetic holiness, and I hope you will. Let us never forget along the way to learning and doing apologetics that holiness is required of us. So, I say to you again: my dear apologist, please be holy.

More from this series

Featured

Jul 21, 2021

My Dear Apologist, Please Be Holy.

Jul 21, 2021

Aug 31, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Patient.

Aug 31, 2020

Aug 19, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Kind.

Aug 19, 2020

Aug 12, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Yourself.

Aug 12, 2020

August 31, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Patient.

August 31, 2020/ T. J. Gentry

My Dear Apologist_ Please, Be Yourself (3).png

Sadly, patient reflection and careful nuance are rare in an age where mobile devices are ubiquitous and social media platforms make it possible to broadcast every moment in real time. Never have so many been able to say so little of substance with so much immediacy. We are awash in a sea of memes, gifs, emojis, sound bites, and two to three worded answers smugly put forth in response to questions that fill books and libraries and have been asked for generations across cultures. Ours is the realm of blind consumers of the “digital now” where the one-eyed social media influencer with the latest quip and clever mantra is king. This is the context in which contemporary apologists are called to give the reason for the hope that is in them.[1] In this context it is the patient apologist, the one who is deliberate and thorough in her holy vocation, she is the one the Lord will use in a lasting way. So, I say to you, my dear apologist: please, be patient.

We must remember that the gospel we are called to reasonably present with passion and genuine concern can be made to appear ugly when its messengers—those who are called as ambassadors of the One whose character is marked by gentleness and longsuffering—become impatient. Urgency is one thing, and an important one to be sure; but impatience is different from urgency. Impatience blinds us to the value of the journey we make with our interlocutors, leaving us to think that all that matters is making a point about this or that issue and coming out on top in the argument. Impatience wants to win the argument, while patient urgency serves the argument in helping win the person.

Or, and this is what may be the most insidious side of impatience when it comes to apologetics, we can become impatient with ourselves and decide it is just too difficult to be an apologist. The voice of this type of impatience says to us, “Look at how hard this is. Learning how to think, to argue with logic and persuasion, to represent the claims of the Bible reasonably and charitably—this is best left to others. If you were truly called to this, it would be easier for you; it would come more quickly. Best to leave this business of apologetics to others. You’re just not suited for it, after all.” This type of impatience hopes to silence the apologetic voice God has given you, eventually leaving you with only a few truncated one-line apologetic answers that do little good. Or, worse, leading you to hastily pass along the scattered thoughts of immature apologists who may exhibit a caustic tone amplified by their own strident impatience and failure to yet grasp the sacred gravitas of the apologetic endeavor. The end result is a dialogue that reduces to diatribe, an opportunity that becomes an affront, a relationship with a seeker that ends before it has a chance to begin.

Whichever type of impatience you see in yourself, and maybe it’s both, I hope you will take the time to carefully internalize what I have come to learn as the Top Ten Helps for the Impatient Apologist. (I hasten to add that these are known by me precisely because I have been known to struggle with my own demons of impatience, and I speak from first-hand experience concerning the failures wrought in my own apologetic endeavors.)

Top Ten Helps for the Impatient Apologist

1. Take the time and effort to learn the nuance of your arguments, both yours and your opponent’s. Nothing of substance in the apologetic realm is learned without time and effort. Commit to the process. Be patient.

2. Write out your thoughts in full sentences, paragraphs, pages, and invite critique and dialogue from trusted advisors before you share them to a larger audience. Hone your skills. Be patient.

3. Do not respond to a critic or enquirer too quickly, or without reflection. Your goal is not to save face or look smarter than someone else, but to manifest the longsuffering, persuasive love of God. Allow time. Be patient.

4. Invest in the conversation, and do not give in to the temptation to put forth shallow or simplistic answers that may appear to win the momentary battle of words but will likely lose the war of influence. Truth matters. Be patient.

5. Apologetics is a journey, not a moment. Yes, there will be important moments, but play the long game and cultivate the habit of seeing beyond the current moment to the eternal one. Urgency is not impatience. Be patient.

6. Your audience as an apologist is, in the final analysis, the Lord. He loves you, and he is patient with your development as a defender of the good news. See him in the face of the other. Be patient.

7. Do not give the enemy a voice in your head, in your heart. He wants you hurried, careless, easily offended, and unfocused. Silence him with patience. Be patient.

8. Use social media judiciously and with careful reflection when it comes to apologetic engagement. Remember that what you post reflects you and your Lord. Do not be afraid to use social media, but do not misuse it. Be patient.

9. If you use another apologist’s work, make sure you know what it says and what it means. Take the time to be taught by others. We are in this together. Be patient.

10. When faced with the choice of speaking the truth impatiently now or speaking the truth in patient love later, always choose love. Now is not always best, and later is not always last. Be patient.

Friends, the struggle with impatience is one that takes…well…patience. It is worth the struggle, and our efforts as apologists only improve when put forth with longsuffering and patience. The urgency of the gospel and the need to passionately reason with others demands our careful patience. The church, and the world, need patient apologists.

I say to you again, my dear apologist: please, be patient.

T. J. is an assistant editor for MoralApologetics.com and oversees the church and pastor development arm of the Center for Moral Apologetics. A southern Illinois native, T. J. has been in pastoral ministry since 1984, currently serving as senior minister of First Christian Church, West Frankfort, IL, where he resides with his wife, Amy, and their five children. A retired Army National Guard chaplain, he is the author of several books and articles on preaching, counseling, evangelism, apologetics, philosophy, and pastoral ministry. He earned the PhD in Leadership and DMin in Pastoral Counseling from Carolina University; the MA in Apologetics from Luther Rice College and Seminary; the MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary; the MAR in Church Ministries, MDiv in Chaplaincy, and ThM in Theology from Liberty University; the BA in Political Science from Southern Illinois University; and is finishing his dissertation at North-West University for the PhD in Theology, and at Carolina University for his PhD in Biblical Studies.

[1] 1 Pet. 3:15.

Featured

Jul 21, 2021

My Dear Apologist, Please Be Holy.

Jul 21, 2021

Aug 31, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Patient.

Aug 31, 2020

Aug 19, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Kind.

Aug 19, 2020

Aug 12, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Yourself.

Aug 12, 2020

August 19, 2020

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Kind.

August 19, 2020/ T. J. Gentry

Sometimes, apologetics can be a nasty business. Discussions devolve. Words frustrate. People become entrenched long before the evidence warrants even a tentative conclusion. Pathways of engagement are marked by incivility, arrogance, and meanness. As I said, sometimes, apologetics can be a nasty business.

Don’t believe me? Take ten minutes and peruse social media feeds and look for what I describe. Oh, it’s there. Many times, the nastiness comes from the unbelievers in the conversation, lashing out in disagreement with the apologist’s claims. Their words are often along these lines…

Resurrection? Yeah, right. Don’t be ridiculous.

You have no evidence for your so called “god.” Don’t be so naïve, so simple, so stupid.

The Bible is a joke, a fable, a concoction of misogynistic power mongers bent on controlling the masses.

Frankly, such responses from unbelievers should not surprise us, nor should they deter us. Further, while there may be many mean-spirited interlocutors whose dismissive invectives make dialogue difficult if not impossible, there are also those who genuinely want to discuss the substantive issues. Not every unbeliever is animated by shallow sound bites and cliched tropes. Many are kind and, dare I say, sympathetic to the apologist’s calling and concern for others. Besides, even when an unbeliever is difficult to engage, should that be such a surprise to us? Apologetics is, after all, carried out amid the unseen realm of spiritual warfare. Shouldn’t we expect difficulty from unbelievers…and from the powers of darkness that often motivate unbelief? I think so. I expect unbelievers to act like unbelievers, and I’m delighted when they are kind, but not put off when they aren’t. Such are the hazards of this calling.

What I’m concerned with is the believers I observe. Those who, for whatever reasons, have decided that it’s okay to become snarky and curt with their interlocutors. They’ve concluded that there is nothing wrong with a dismissive remark or a cutting ad hominem, so long as the point is made in favor of the winning side. It seems they thrive on the grit and terseness of one-line zingers directed to their opponent. Here are some examples that I have actually heard from apologists—from Christians—and these are the mild ones…

Only an idiot would fail to see the evidence for the resurrection. Only an idiot!

Your refusal to accept the evidence is simply a matter of your spiritual rebellion. You have no logical basis for rejecting what I say. You’re just a rebel with unclear thoughts…and you are intellectually lazy!

The fact that you reject the Bible is more about your total ignorance of history than anything else. It doesn’t take much ability to see that your claims about difficulties in the Bible are simply misguided and foolish. Your argument is hardly even an argument!

I suspect the idea of someone talking like this perplexes most of you, and you just cannot imagine ever taking such an approach. However, perhaps you don’t think such words are problematic at all, and maybe you agree with those who use them and similar ones to challenge their opponents in the battle of ideas. You may wonder, “But what about Jesus? Didn’t he use strong words with his opponents? After all, calling the Pharisees a ‘brood of vipers’[1] is not exactly soft pedaling, is it?”

Well, I grant you that Jesus spoke directly to the heart of his opponents, and his words were clear and forceful. He did not dance around the issues when it came to confronting the corrupt religious leaders of his day, and there may be an example in Jesus’ approach for us to follow. Yet, and this is an important qualifier, Jesus’ mission was unique, his abilities divine, his knowledge perfect, and his judgment always correct. And, lest we forget, he did rebuke his disciples upon the occasion of their wanting to call down fire in an Elijah-like manner and destroy an inhospitable Samaritan village, reminding his overzealous followers that he “did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”[2]

Seems to me that Jesus was more concerned to be careful with the unbelieving and doubting than to silence their opposition and “put them in their proper place.” His motive was more about love than anything else, and even his challenge to the religious leaders was animated by a desire for their conversion. Did he not weep, crying out “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!”?[3] Did he not petition his Father to “forgive them, for they do not know what they do”?[4] Was it not to the Jews first that he sent the gospel messengers on the Day of Pentecost, beseeching them through Peter to “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”?[5]

It is kindness, dear apologist, kindness that is needed in our cultural moment. What our interlocutors need is not the sting of our truth devoid of love, but our kindness. Do they also need our clear thinking? Of course. Our rational and impassioned argumentation? Certainly. But now is not the time for impatient and caustic words. Now is the time for kindness. What is most called for in this moment is a convincing position delivered with gentleness and tact, intentionally expressing the goodness of God through kindness in our demeanor, our tactics, and our words. Kindness is countercultural, and it is what the world needs from us now as ever.

Surely, Paul’s insight is one for all of us, especially those who are wont to a sharpness of tongue in apologetic dialogue: “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.”[6] Kindness is the language of God’s love, and I am absolutely certain that none of us will ever stand before God and regret giving our reasons for the hope that is within us in a kind and charitable manner.

Again, I say to you: My dear apologist, please, be kind.

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Yourself.

August 12, 2020/ T. J. Gentry

I sense there is a strong temptation among fellow apologists to try to be like someone else in their efforts to present the truth claims of the Christian faith. Rather than following King David’s example of refusing Saul’s armor in the fight against Goliath and choosing instead to use the simple sling and smooth stones he knew so well, an apologist may try to parrot this or that popular speaker or author. In doing so, they risk losing something that the world needs more than an imitation of someone else; they risk losing their unique voice in the apologetic arena.

I have been there, and I understand the temptation.

I originally thought, going back nearly four decades, that my goal should be to memorize and imitate the then-current apologetic arguments and style of successful apologists like Josh McDowell, Paul Little, or Norman Geisler. I even went through a time when I attempted to become the redivivus of C. S. Lewis, Pascal, and Anselm. To be sure, all these men are capable and effective apologists, certainly worthy of emulation in many, many areas. Yet, my mistake was to try to recreate what they did and who they were, and that is impossible. God called them to a specific task at a specific time, and my calling was not the same. I cannot be anyone other than me. So, after several poor attempts at being someone else, I decided that the best I could be was me…just me.

It was about the same time that a wise pastor shared something with me that I took to heart and have never forgotten. I was preparing a series of sermons for a revival campaign, and, in the course of discussions with the host pastor, I explained that I was considering using a number of outlines I found in an evangelistic preaching book as the basis for my sermons. The pastor looked at me for a moment, then spoke with clarity and a bit of forcefulness these words, “It’s fine to look at another man’s work and learn from it, but never forget that God has something to say through you, and he wants you to say it in your way, not someone else’s.” And just like that, my heart was pierced, and my mind was opened. I learned that day that God gave me a voice, and he wanted—expected—that I would use it and not try to use some other voice and pass it off as my own.

Here is how I have taken that counsel to heart as an apologist, and what I hope you will learn from my journey in coming to be myself.

1. It is fine and good to learn from other apologists, to study their arguments, to internalize their methods. The goal, however, is not to parrot or repeat them; the goal is to learn from them and integrate that learning into your own message. And when you are following the path of another apologist, be up front and open about it. Do not plagiarize a person.

2. Remember that the people you are privileged to serve and encounter in your apologetics context are likely in one of two categories. They either do not know who you are trying to imitate and will think it odd that you are not simply being yourself with them, or they do know who you are trying to imitate and will realize you are not the same as the apologists you copy (and this last group may feel you are being a bit shady by not being yourself).

3. None of us are as good as all of us when it comes to apologetics, so find your niche in the apologetics arena and serve there. Be you in the place where God has called you, and let the others be who they are where God has called them. God will not ask you to give an account for another person’s calling, but he will ask you about yours.

Again, I say to you: my dear apologist, please, be yourself. The world needs you.

May 29, 2019

Book Review: What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

May 29, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Introduction

In this review I summarize and engage What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (hereafter, WIM) by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George.[1] Here are a few general comments before I present a more focused discussion below. First, I found the book immensely helpful as a logical argument in service of an apologetic for the traditional view of marriage (hereafter, TVM), even though it was tough reading at times simply because of the design of the work as a legal brief. The challenge was not that the book is unnavigable due to a lack of clarity or poor writing quality, but that I had to stretch my mind to think in the closely argued and sometimes tedious manner of legal parlance, though I did find the stretch quite enjoyable once I adjusted my expectations. Further, I had to remind myself (and a classmate!) that this book was not intended to provide a biblical or theological argument in favor of TVM, at least not explicitly, though the authors certainly provide implicit arguments for the value of general revelation and natural theology, which are both part of the Christian message. So, the apologetic benefit was primarily the role it serves in bolstering the traditional view of marriage through philosophical argumentation without appeals to special revelation. The book is nothing short of impressive simply as an example of the giftedness of the authors, especially Girgis, whose work on the book and in other contexts related to the TVM discussion reminds me that apologists come from varied backgrounds and sometimes appear in cultural and intellectual contexts that some in the church are tempted to conclude are territories long ago lost to the enemy. I have in mind here Girgis’ academic circumstances at Yale and Princeton, neither one a bastion of Christian orthodoxy or cultural conservatism, and yet, there he is defending the TVM.

Summary and Engagement

The authors begin by stating that, “What we have come to call the gay marriage debate is not directly about homosexuality, but about marriage. It is not about whom to let marry, but about what marriage is.”[2] Given the timing of the book’s release (pre-2015 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States), I find something poignant about these words, especially since most of my experience as a pastor regarding the TVM debate has centered more on homosexuality and less on marriage. Only now have I and other Christian leaders realized we may have had our guns trained on the wrong target, missing the opportunity to focus on marriage and make a positive apologetic argument about it because it was too easy to pick-off the low-hanging fruit of homosexuality through a negative apologetic engagement with the more extreme advocates of same-sex relationships. It appears the enemy’s diversion was somewhat successful, especially as the Christian army now scrambles to reorient itself to the new realities it faces amid its waning influence on Western culture. Not that I have lost hope, but the task before us is daunting and fraught with difficulty, which makes WIM’s insight about the need to focus on the nature of marriage all the more pertinent.

Thus, to help focus the discussion on marriage, the authors distinguish between two views of marriage: the conjugal view and the revisionist view. The conjugal view “is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity.”[3] The revisionist view offers “a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they find it.”[4]

There are at least two striking differences between these views. First, the revisionist approach to marriage—though sharing with the conjugal view an emphasis on the place of a loving bond within marriage—reduces to something that is ultimately subjective and impermanent, based on an emotional fulfillment that is sometimes ephemeral and at least given to wax and wane according to the challenges faced by the couple. Second, whereas the conjugal view implicitly entails a heterosexual understanding of marriage based on its emphasis on bodily union and family sharing, the revisionist view does not require any specific expression of human sexuality since the focus of the marriage becomes emotional fulfillment and nothing specifically procreative.

These differences in understanding what marriage is provide the opening that advocates of same-sex relationships took advantage of in making their case for gay marriage by reducing the discussion to something that is both real and helpful for a relationship, i.e., the emotional bond, and around which a rallying cry was easy to develop: Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot love? The approach worked and an entire cultural norm has been changed, making sexuality and gender fluid constructs of little consequence in the rush to defend the value of emotional bonds as the locus of the marriage definition. As the authors of WIM labor to make clear, the problem is that the revisionist view introduces an intractable instability into its new definition of marriage. When emotional fulfillment becomes the determiner of permanence there is nothing permanent about marriage—feelings change, and relationships begin and end accordingly.

The outcome, and one that becomes more obvious as the societal implications of the revisionist view work their way into everyday life, is that “any remaining restrictions on marriage [become] arbitrary” and “genuine marital union” is lost along with the culture dependent upon it.[5] At this intersection of culture and the revisionist view of marriage there are a number of pernicious implications, and this is where I find what I think is one of the most compelling aspects of WIM’s argument. The authors identify several outcomes from the revisionist view of marriage: spousal well-being declines; child well-being declines; the possibility diminishes for substantive friendships between those of the same gender; religious liberty is infringed for those holding the conjugal view of marriage; and the state’s role expands to intrusive levels.[6]

There is a sense of clarity and foreboding that build as the authors make their case across the seven chapters of WIM: clarity regarding exactly what marriage is and what the revisionist view entails, and foreboding regarding the seeds of destruction sown by the revisionist redefinition of marriage adopted by the Supreme Court in the years following the publication of WIM. The authors make a penetrating and prescient statement in their concluding chapter, explaining that “there is no neutral marriage policy.”[7] Nor is there anything neutral about the conjugal and revisionist views of marriage, and this is the point of WIM—marriage is not some inconsequential ad hoc societal construct that one may take or leave based on preferences. “Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage…. Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband and wife really serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society.”[8]

Relevance for Apologetics

At this point I would like to highlight that the Christian apologist can learn a few valuable lessons about apologetics from WIM’s approach. First, regarding apologetic methodology, what WIM’s authors provide is a cumulative case approach to the discussion of same-sex marriage. Notice how their case builds based on clear definitions, well-thought out implications, and appeals derived from the positive and negative conclusions warranted by the discussion. Rather than a merely deductive approach, there is a certain appeal in the abductive build-out of the argument for the conjugal view of marriage; a certain let-this-sink-in-for-a-moment momentum that has a potentially powerful epistemic effect on all sides of the discussion. Christians concerned about this topic would do well to follow this pattern, especially in our increasingly affect-driven, truth-claim-suspicious culture.

Second, by delineating the negative effects resulting from the revisionist view, the authors of WIM heed the biblical command to “answer a fool according to his folly” (Prov. 26:5) as they expose the unavoidable outcome of redefining marriage according to emotional fulfillment.[9] This aspect of the argument pairs nicely with WIM’s positive articulation of the conjugal view and its definition of marriage as “a comprehensive union of persons.”[10] In this regard the authors of WIM also obey the Bible’s command “do not answer a fool according to his folly” (Prov. 26:4), as they make their strong case for the conjugal view. Thus, there is a certain apologetic flow to the presentation in WIM, moving from challenging the revisionist view by articulating the conjugal view, and then teasing out the implication of the revisionist view for individuals and culture.

Third, and this is more of an ecclesial and less apologetic observation, as Girgis explains in a presentation to church leaders about the topic of same-sex marriage, the church has the answer that the revisionist definition seeks to address.[11] The church is the community in which meaningful emotional bonds can and should be formed, and the church has a special calling to those who think they can only find this type of relationship in same-sex marriage. It is the church that gives special significance to the ultimate and mystical meaning of marriage as an eternal bond between Christ and his bride, and it is within the context of the church that all other relationships have a place that is also ultimate and mystical, though marriage need not be redefined for these relationships to be enjoyed.

Conclusion

Sadly, since the publication of WIM, the revisionist view of marriage has won the day in the United States and the implications are staggering. Ironically, the very ones most concerned to see their welfare affirmed and their relationship freedoms enshrined will only continue to find that they are attempting to fetch water from a dried-up well. Thus, the views of the authors of WIM are as important now as ever, and the conjugal view of marriage can and should be explained, defended, and sought to be restored to the culture so dependent upon it. God, help us.

T. J. shares a passion for the moral argument(s) and brings much to his new post. He is, in his own words, a “mere Christian with genuine fascination and awe for the breadth and depth of God’s gracious kingdom.” He became a Christian in 1978, and began pastoral ministry in 1984. He has worked as a youth pastor, senior pastor, church planter, church-based seminary professor, a chaplain assistant in the Army, and a chaplain in the Army National Guard. A southern Illinois native, T. J. is a graduate of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale with a BA in Political Science; Liberty University with an MAR in Church Ministries, an MDiv in Chaplaincy, and a ThM in Theology; Luther Rice College and Seminary with an MA in Apologetics; and Piedmont International University with a DMin in Pastoral Counseling. He is currently writing his dissertation on crisis leadership in the epistle of Jude for the PhD in Leadership at Piedmont, as well as pursuing a PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty, hoping to write his dissertation on some aspect of the intersection of moral apologetics and the pastorate. He is the author of several books, including God Help Us: Encouragement for Evangelism, and Thinking of Worship: A Liturgical Miscellany, as well as journal articles on liturgics, pastoral counseling, homiletics, and apologetics. He and his wife have five children. T. J.’s preaching may be heard at www.sermonaudio.com/fellowshipinchrist.

Notes

[1] Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2012), Kindle.

[2] Girgis, Anderson, and George, Kindle location 70.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Girgis, Anderson, and George, Kindle location 78.

[5] Girgis, Anderson, and George, Kindle location 162-169.

[6] Ibid., Kindle location 162-193.

[7] Ibid., Kindle location 1369.

[8] Girgis, Anderson, and George, Kindle location 1411-1419.

[9] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are taken from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982).

[10] Girgis, Anderson, and George, Kindle location 371.

[11] Sherif Girgis, “Better together: Marriage and the Common Good,” Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, podcast audio, August 23, 2016, https://erlc.com/resource-library/erlc-podcast-episodes/better-together-marriage-and-the-common-good.

April 10, 2019

Risen from the Dead? A Sample Sermon Manuscript for Apologetic Preaching

April 10, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Here is a sermon manuscript (albeit another brief one!) based on the STEPS model for apologetic preaching, as applied to positive apologetics, i.e., where the apologist focuses on reasons why someone might believe, rather than focusing on what is wrong some particular belief or religion. To help understand the “flow” of the message, the manuscript is in five parts based on the STEPS acrostic.

Specify the Apologetic Topic

What reasons are there to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? That question may surprise some of you, since you already believe Jesus rose, and you have never felt the need to develop a list of reasons for your belief. If that describes you, then I invite you to simply listen and consider why you believe what you believe. Remember, faith involves evidence and certainty, so what you hear today can be a help in growing your faith. Plus, you never know when the Lord is going to give you the opportunity to talk with someone who is not as sure as you about Jesus’ resurrection, and you will be able to help them along after hearing this message.

Maybe, though, you are new to the Christian faith and hunger to know more about your faith, or possibly someone has recently posed a question or objection about the resurrection that you would like to be able to answer with confidence. In either case, this message is for you, too. It’s also offered with the seeker in mind, the one who is looking for answers and thinks Christianity may be where to find them. Whoever you are and whatever your situation, let’s make a journey together and discover reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Tell the Topic’s Significance

Before considering the biblical and rational basis for believing the resurrection occurred, consider a few of the theological and practical reasons the topic is significant. From a theological perspective the resurrection is an essential part of the gospel message. As Paul explains in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, “I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” In this passage we learn that the gospel is about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection—all three are fundamentals of the good news, but especially the resurrection. This is why Paul goes on in 15:14 and 17 to declare that “if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty, and your faith is also empty…. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” Clearly, the Christian faith depends upon the resurrection.

Likewise, the resurrection is a practical help when considering our own mortality and the death of our loved one who are Christians. Jesus’ victory over death holds a promise of future things for all who believe, since every Christian, too, will one day rise from the dead if they die before Jesus returns. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 15:20, 52 and 54 are especially helpful in this regard: “But now Christ is risen from the dead and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep…. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible…. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’” What is the basis of this hope? The resurrection of Jesus from the dead! Death is not the final word. Resurrection is. Eternal joy is coming because Jesus rose from the dead.

Explain the Biblical and Rational Basis Concerning the Apologetic Topic

The biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is plentiful. Paul’s testifies what Jesus “rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once…. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also” (1 Cor. 15:4-7). Concerning the five hundred brethren Paul describes, he explains that “the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:6). Why is this significant? Only because Paul was making a public claim that many who saw Jesus after his resurrection were still alive at the time the letter to the Corinthians was written. Paul was appealing to eyewitness testimony writ large. Further, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all give accounts of the resurrection in their gospel narratives, each providing specific details about when the empty tomb was discovered, who was there, as well as accounts of the encounters they and others had with Jesus after he arose. These examples indicate there is strong biblical evidence to support Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

What about other reasons to believe the resurrection account? Consider the historical testimony of leaders in the early church after the time of the apostles. Men like Origen, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr—sometimes referred to as Church Fathers—all testify to the resurrection of Jesus as both historical fact and having pastoral significance. Consider also the personal changes in the apostles after the resurrection, how Peter went from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming him as the risen Lord, and how Paul went from persecutor of Christians to missionary for Jesus and defender of the resurrection. Finally, if the resurrection did not happen, they why didn’t the Jewish authorities simply produce the body of Jesus and end the early church’s growth and influence? They didn’t do so because the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. He rose from the dead, just as he promised. This isn’t all the biblical and rational evidence for the resurrection, but there is certainly much that is worthwhile in what we have considered. The evidence is in, and there is good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Practically Apply the Apologetic Topic for the Hearers

Amid all this talk of biblical and rational evidence there are also particular practical benefits to the resurrection for each of your lives. Perhaps you are struggling with a sinful habit and you seem to always make one step forward but two steps back. As a Christian you can gain the victory because of the resurrection of Jesus. That’s right! According to Rom. 8:10-11, “if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” Without the resurrection you are powerless, but with the resurrection comes power through the Spirit. You can overcome sin in your life because Jesus rose from the dead.

Another benefit to believing the resurrection relates to the brokenness in our world. Do you ever find yourself thinking that the news is always bad, that things just seem to get worse and worse? You are not alone, and the world is a dark place in many ways. However, because of the resurrection of Jesus there is hope that one day the world will be put to right. Concerning this hope, Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 15:22-25 are comforting: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” These verses remind us that the resurrection of Jesus is more than a doctrine, more than a historical fact, it is the final hope for an end to suffering and the beginning of a better world.

Summarize and Transition to a Related Invitation

We started by asking about the reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We have considered this question in several ways, including its theological and practical importance, the biblical and rational case for believing the resurrection, and how the resurrection matters in particular circumstances of our lives. I trust that you feel the weight of the evidence concerning Jesus’ resurrection, and that your faith is strengthened. If you are seeking answers, I pray you give sincere consideration to those offered here.

As we conclude I would like to give this simple invitation. Christian, the resurrection is central to your faith. Perhaps it is time to give yourself to serious study of its reliability, asking God to give you opportunities to share the evidence for the resurrection with others. Will you do that today? Someone in your life needs to hear about the resurrection, and you are the one to tell them. What about you, the seeker who came today looking for answers? As I just stated, I pray you give sincere consideration to those offered here. Jesus died for you, and was buried and rose again, all for you. He offers to give you new life, resurrection life. Will you accept his offer today?

March 27, 2019

If God, Why Evil?: A Sample Sermon Manuscript for Apologetic Preaching

March 27, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Here is a sermon manuscript (albeit a brief one!) based on the STEPS model for apologetic preaching, as applied to negative apologetics, i.e., where the apologist is playing defense…seeking to remove obstacles to belief. To help understand the “flow” of the message, the manuscript is in five parts based on the STEPS acrostic.

Specify the Apologetic Challenge

If God exists, why is there so much evil in the world? A tsunami destroys several coastal villages, sweeping entire families into the sea. A military dictator decides a neighboring people are a threat and orders his troops to kill them all in a merciless genocidal purge. A car spins out of control on a patch of black ice, crashing into a ravine and leaving a mother and her infant son dead. These are real examples of evil in the world around us, and each one brings heartache and brokenness in its wake. Such instances leave many unsure how to reconcile the existence of God and the existence of evil, and some even conclude that in a world of such pain God cannot exist.

Maybe you agree with them and sit here today not believing in God, or at least you are not sure if God exists. You have experienced evil, and know of others who have, too, and now the idea of God seems more of a fairy tale than a reality. Surveys of religious beliefs, and specifically about whether God exists, show that you are not alone in your conclusion and questioning. Not everyone believes in God, and often the reason is related to so much evil in the world. Let’s think about this together. Does evil in the world prove that God does not exist?

Tell the Critic’s Best Argument

Before I present what I think are good reasons to believe in the existence of God in spite of the evil in the world, I want to talk a bit more about what many atheists have argued in defense of the conclusion that evil rules out God’s existence. The atheist begins by acknowledging the presence of evil in the world. Consider, for example, what I discussed earlier. The tsunami that kills thousands; a tyrant who commits genocide by killing an entire neighboring people; the mother and child who die in a car crash—these are examples of evil in world. The tsunami and car crash represent what may be called natural evil, and the genocide is an example of moral evil.

If God exists, the atheist continues, then surely he would be powerful enough to stop evil, both natural and moral. God is all-powerful, right? Further, if God exists, then surely he would want to stop evil. God is all-good, right? Yet, evil still exists, both in natural disasters and in the wicked choices people make. So, the atheist concludes that God is either not powerful enough to stop evil, or he is not really good, since he does not stop evil. Therefore, since evil exists, God must not exist, at least not an all-powerful and all-good God. This is especially challenging for the Christian conception of God, which considers God’s power and goodness as essential to his existence. Thus, if the atheist is right, and evil proves God is not all-power or all-good, then what of the Christian God?

Expose the Weakness of the Critic’s Argument

But wait a minute. Before we conclude that the presence of evil in the world is proof that God does not exist, and if he does then he is weak, wicked, or both, I think there are some problems with the atheist’s argument. Let’s consider these as questions. What if God is all-powerful and all-good, but he refuses to override human free will? While we can certainly imagine a world without moral evil—without genocidal military dictators, without child molesters, without rapists—such a world would also be somehow less than human if free will were taken away and the only reason for no moral evil was because there was no human freedom. True freedom implies choices, the freedom to choose good or to choose evil.

Further, if God does not exist, then where does the atheist get the ideas of good and evil, of right and wrong? If the atheist responds that each person must decide what is right and wrong, then possibly what the rapist does is actually right in his own way of thinking. Even if the atheist refuses to go along with such relativism, insisting that there are actual moral facts, a real and objective right and wrong, they have no ultimate standard from which to make this conclusion. Moral laws require a moral lawgiver, but the atheist does not think one exists. There are other questions to ask the atheist who believes evil and God cannot coexist, but these represent what I think are the ones especially important for now.

Present the Answer to the Apologetic Challenge

What does the Christian faith teach about God’s existence, especially considering the presence natural and moral evil in the world? For starters, the Bible explains that God made the world and everything and everyone in it, and that when he did this he made humans as his special representatives. Genesis 1:1 declares that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and in 1:27 that, “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” However, as the Bible goes on to reveal, the first humans chose to disobey God in the very area we are discussing—in the area of good and evil. Genesis 2:15-17 describes how “the LORD God took the man and put in in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Perhaps you have heard how this all turned out, how the man and woman chose to disobey God and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and how that resulted in several far-reaching consequences. These include a breakdown in human relationships and, eventually, the first murder. Likewise, the natural world became a difficult place for the man to work and live. What are we to make of this? It seems reasonable to me that the misuse of human freedom goes a long way in explaining the presence of evil in the world that God created. The account doesn’t stop here, though. No, far from abandoning the world to evil, God began redeeming it, promising one day that he “will wipe away every tear…there shall be no more death, no sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain” (Rev. 21:4). Thus, it also seems reasonable to me that God will one day bring an end to all evil and, though I am not immune from its effects, that God’s existence is a key to understanding evil in the world.

Summarize and Transition to a Related Invitation

I don’t pretend that this brief message answers every question related to the presence of evil in the world and whether God exists. There are other aspects of the topic to discuss, and you may have even deeper, more personal questions. However, what we have heard does offer a possible solution to the dilemma created by evil. Yes, evil exists. There have been and will likely be more terrible natural disasters, more evil regimes, and more fatal crashes. Natural and moral evil are part of the world we live in, and they touch all of our lives. Does the Christian faith offer a solution? Absolutely, though it is not a simple, quick fix. The Christian faith not only explains the presence of evil related to human freedom and the promise that evil will one day be fully dealt with; the Christian message is also one that includes God’s own struggle with evil. Jesus Christ was the victim of moral evil. He was murdered in a most ruthless, painful manner, even though he had done no wrong. Jesus took evil personally, dying a criminal’s death on a Roman cross, centuries ago. The Christian faith does not teach that it ended on the cross, though. Rather, as an example of how God will eventually overcome evil, Jesus rose from the dead and will return to earth someday.

What does all this mean to you as you struggle with evil and God’s existence? Maybe it means that you have begun to consider that evil is not all there is, that God really does exist. If that is you, I hope you will continue to wrestle with these matters and let the evidence build. Talk with the person who invited you here today or talk with me after the service. There is more to know about evil and God and the hope of the Christian message. Maybe you are that person here who has decided it is time to stop doubting and start believing. The evidence makes sense. You’ve heard this message and others like it, maybe even read books and talked with others, and now you are ready to follow the evidence where it leads. It leads to Jesus, and in just a moment we will offer you an opportunity to talk with someone about taking the next step in your journey of faith.

(Next week’s article will give another sample apologetic sermon outline, one that focuses on positive apologetics.)

March 20, 2019

A Model for Apologetic Preaching

March 20, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Most preachers I talk to about apologetics and preaching agree that the two can and should go together, but few have a workable model for developing apologetic sermons. Thus, I developed an approach to preparing apologetic messages that utilizes the acrostic STEPS. Before I share the details of the STEPS model, a word about two types of apologetics: negative and positive. Nash’s definition of the two is helpful:

In negative apologetics, the major objective is producing answers to challenges to religious faith. The proper task of negative apologetics is removing obstacles to belief…. In negative apologetics, the apologist is playing defense. In positive apologetics, the apologist begins to play offense. It is one thing to show (or attempt to show) that assorted arguments against religious faith are weak or unsound; it is a rather different task to offer people reasons why they should believe. The latter is the task of positive apologetics.

Given the difference between negative and positive apologetics, I adapted the STEPS model to address each approach. Here is how STEPS works for negative apologetics.

Specify the Apologetic Challenge

Given the concern in negative apologetics to defend the faith against attacks, the starting point in developing an apologetic sermon outline for negative apologetics is to specify the apologetic challenge the sermon intends to address. The preacher’s goal at this point is to initiate a connection with the audience based on the topic under consideration. While there is not necessarily one “right” way to do this, it may prove useful to quote an opponent of the Christian faith, followed by a question.

Tell the Critic’s Best Argument

Having identified the apologetic challenge, the negative apologetic sermon now includes the best example of an argument in favor of the position stated in the challenge. At this point the preacher must take the time to learn and accurately represent the views of those he is engaging. God is not honored nor are the saints helped when strawmen are built and attacked. Always present the opposing view’s best argument.

Present the Answer to the Apologetic Challenge

At this point the preacher will present what the Bible and other sources say about the apologetic challenge. The focus of the preacher turns from answering the critic to offering reasons to believe the Christian faith despite the apologetic challenge being discussed. When sharing the answer to the apologetic challenge the preacher is helping the hearer understand that the Christian faith is both reasonable and based in divine revelation.

Summarize and Transition to a Related Invitation

It is possible to present the first four parts of the STEPS model within a sermon that is broader than just the apologetics (e.g., a message about foolishness could include a discussion of the fool’s denial of God’s existence). However, if the message is wholly apologetic, then the preacher’s last responsibility is to summarize and offer a gospel invitation relevant to the audience (i.e., if evangelism, then the gospel portion is an invitation to believe and repent, but if discipleship, then the gospel portion is an invitation to trust God more deeply; if both, then both).

And here is how STEPS works for positive apologetics.

Specify the Apologetic Topic

In a positive apologetic message, where the goal is to present a positive case for belief, the preacher begins by specifying the apologetic topic. This approach sets the expectation with the hearer that the sermon will provide reasons to believe. It will help the preacher connect with his audience if, when introducing the apologetic topic, he avoids the language of doubt (though such language may prove helpful with negative apologetics), focusing instead on inviting the hearer into a deeper consideration of the positive case for believing.

Tell the Topic’s Significance

After specifying the topic, the preacher gives the hearers a few key reasons why the topic is important. It will help the preacher to think in terms of doctrine and practice at this point. Help the listener understand the doctrinal significance of the topic, how it relates to overall Christian theology. Likewise, discuss how the topic generally relates to living the Christian life, to the practice of faith.

Explain the Biblical and Rational Basis Concerning the Apologetic Topic

The topic has been presented and its significance considered, so the preacher turns to a presentation of the biblical and rational basis for believing whatever is under consideration. This is the central apologetic content of the message, where the argument in favor of the belief is put forth in clear and compelling terms. While the preacher’s goal is not to harangue his hearers and browbeat them concerning the topic, he should make an impassioned case for “the hope that is in [him]” (1 Pet. 3:15).

Practically Apply the Apologetic Topic for the Hearers

This is where the preacher transitions from apologetic case-making to practical application. How does the apologetic topic relate to the hearers? The emphasis at this point in making apologetic realities fit real life needs.

Summarize and Transition to a Related Invitation

As with the STEPS model applied to negative apologetics, so it is possible for the positive model to be a part of a message dealing with something not exclusively apologetic. If so, there is not necessarily a transition to a related invitation. However, if the positive apologetic message is stand-alone, then the preacher will conclude by summarizing and making a transition appropriate to the topic and audience—unbeliever, believer, or both.

Conclusion

I realize it is probably easier to understand STEPS in an actual sermon. At this point, however, what is most important is the basic structure. In the next two weekly installments I will present actual sermon manuscripts, one for negative apologetics and one for positive apologetics.

March 13, 2019

Making the Case: Apologetic Preaching and Abductive Argumentation

March 13, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Doing apologetics requires some level of logical argumentation. Groothuis explains that “apologetics means philosophical engagement, and philosophy trades in logic.” Though logic and argumentation may be difficult for some Christians, apologetics without arguments quickly reduces to assertions and becomes a denial of Peter’s command to “be ready to give a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15). Is there, though, a preferred style of argumentation for apologetics, especially apologetic preaching? While I think that all forms of valid argumentation could have a place in apologetics at some point, it is in abductive argumentation that apologetic preaching may find its greatest ally.

What is Abductive Argumentation?

Simply stated, abductive argumentation hopes to arrive at an inference to the best explanation without claiming a standard of certainty usually associated with other types of logical arguments (e.g., deduction or induction). This is not to deny any Christian’s testimony and the certainty they possess based on the coming together of reason and faith in their minds and heart. Rather, abduction seeks to point toward certainty without “demanding it” based on the outcome of a particular logical construct. Admittedly, discussions of argumentation can quickly get to a pretty heady level, and that is certainly not the goal of using abduction in apologetic preaching. However, preachers will make some type of argument, so the matter is really how they will argue, not if they will. Here’s an example of how abduction might be stated in the form of premises and conclusion related to a moral argument for God’s existence.

P1: Most of us recognize that some things are morally good, and some are bad.

P2: We applaud the child on the playground who stands up to the bully. We boo the bully for picking on others.

P3: If the bully changes his ways, we praise him for becoming a better boy. If the bully reverts to his bullying, we consider him to have started acting badly again.

P4: Why do we conclude that standing up to the bully is good, or that bullying another is bad? We do so because we have a standard of what is good and bad by which to assess what we and others do.

P5: The Christian claims that this standard is based on who God is, and that our sense of good and evil relates to our being made in God’s image.

C: Thus, Christianity provides a reasonable explanation—possibly the best explanation—for the human experience of good and evil.

The goal of making an abductive case like this is to let it build in a cumulative manner that moves intentionally toward the goal of offering—not necessarily demanding—that the Christian conclusion is reasonable and may be the best answer. In preaching particularly this type of abductive approach provides a couple of important benefits.

A Couple of Reasons Abduction Helps in Apologetic Preaching

First, because it claims to come to an inference to the best explanation, abduction offers a manner of apologetic reasoning in preaching that avoids being overly dogmatic. As Baggett and Baggett explain, “the procedure of abduction goes like this: we come across something that needs to be explained, then we identify a range of possible explanations, and then we narrow the list down to the best one.” Some apologists might chafe at this approach, claiming that the apologetic enterprise should insist on certainty, and that apologetic preaching, especially, should prefer more than an inference to the best explanation as an outcome. However, there is a sense in which claims to absolute certainty may lack explanatory power when it comes to how faith forms around what is “hoped for...[and] unseen” (Heb. 11:1-2). Is the Christian worldview compelling? Absolutely. Is there evidence worthy of consideration? Of course. However, the ideas of certainty associated with argumentation are not something found in the pages of the Bible, but in the later developments of modern thought, which has a decided bias against the idea of biblical faith. Abduction is a way to keep the apologist in check against the temptation to overconfidence in the power of his arguments, and to help him remember that there is more involved in coming to faith than syllogisms and rationality.

Second, abduction can help preachers avoid oversimplification. This is an error that apologists fall into when they think a simple syllogism is all that is needed to make the case for some aspect of Christian truth. Rather than accepting that one cannot with absolute epistemic certainty prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, apologists may assume that their personal convictions are equivalent to philosophical standards of truth and certainty. They assume that belief is simply a matter of following the premises to the logical conclusion and expect that their hearers only need to follow the logic of an argument to come to belief in God or some other Christian claim. Yet, conversion is ordinarily a process that takes time and possibly numerous conversations, and it is only the exception that finds a person coming to Christ after hearing only one argument. Like Paul in Athens sharing the gospel on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34), the abductive argument in the hands of the apologetic preacher offers a reasonable explanation of the audience’s circumstances while presenting the Christian worldview. Some may scoff, some may decide to hear more, and some may believe—whatever the outcome may be, the cumulative abductive case for faith has been made.

Conclusion

There is certainly much more that could be said about abduction in apologetic preaching, but I trust its conduciveness to humility and avoiding oversimplification are somewhat clear. In the next installment I will present a model for developing apologetic messages.

February 27, 2019

Equipping the Saints: Apologetic Preaching as Discipleship

February 27, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

I’ve been preaching for over thirty years. I’ve preached a lot of sermons in that time, and most were directed to believers. I consider preaching to be my primary means of equipping disciples. It’s not that I don’t engage in other activities to aid the flock—I also counsel and mentor and provide general pastoral care. However, preaching is my main disciple-making practice. Apologetics has a role in this, but I confess that I have not always appreciated its importance nor have I (until recently) carefully considered why apologetic preaching as discipleship is fundamental to my calling as a preacher. Yet, in God’s kindness He has broadened my vision for preaching, and here are few of the things I am learning about the rationale for apologetic preaching as discipleship.

Apologetic Preaching as Discipleship Helps Remove Obstacles to Christian Growth

Growing, active Christians will inevitably experience doubts about the content of their faith or the surety of their relationship with the Lord as they grow and are tested. To paraphrase Luther, the Christian cannot keep all doubts away any more than a man can control the birds that fly around the trees in his yard. Also, if Christians are engaging their culture and sharing their faith, they will eventually encounter someone who is hostile to the faith and armed with one or more substantive arguments.

When Christians experience these challenges, apologetic preaching for discipleship can help address the doubts and provide answers to challenges to the faith. Sometimes, as Habermas explains, doubt is intellectual, sometimes it is emotional, and sometimes is it a matter of refusing to believe out of rebellion. Regardless of its source, apologetics through preaching can help the Christian move past doubt to faith and obedience. Apologetics is like a coin with two-sides: one side focuses on those who are not yet Christians, and the other side focuses on those who already believe. Both are legitimate roles for apologetics, and when a pastor knows this and takes seriously his responsibility to preach sermons that include apologetics, he helps his congregation grow in spiritual maturity.

Apologetic Preaching as Discipleship Aids in Teaching the “How” of Apologetics

Like it or not, a preacher’s congregation will learn how to do certain things by the way the preacher does them. For instance, how a preacher regularly explains the gospel at the time of invitation will have a pedagogical effect on the congregation over time, and they will likely explain the gospel in terms similar to their preacher. This is not necessarily a problem if the preacher is careful of his method and cognizant that he is teaching by doing, especially in the pulpit. The upside to this phenomenon is that when it comes to apologetic preaching as discipleship, a preacher can both equip the saints with apologetic content and with apologetic presentation skills.

While the congregation may not acquire the precision and polish of their pastor, they can learn the basics from his delivery method. This is, in part, how Augustine taught his mentees to preach and teach during his years of ministry as pastor and bishop in North Africa. Smither explains that, “the daily disciplines of prayer, scriptural study, and reading, as well as regular interaction with Augustine’s teaching, prepared many monks for a possible future in church ministry.” Smither also reports that much of Augustine’s apologetic material (e.g., against the Donatists, against Pelagius, against the Manicheans) was developed and presented in the context of training his mentees. Thus, Augustine provides an excellent example of how what is said in a sermon or teaching conveys both content and method to the hearers. Apologetic preaching for discipleship is one of the means to convey such content and methods to the people of God.

Apologetic Preaching as Discipleship Serves as a Means to Guarding the Flock

When pastors commit to apologetic preaching as discipleship, whether for a specific series of messages or as an ongoing practice in all messages, they are helping maintain the right and left limits of orthodoxy within the congregation. This aspect of apologetic preaching is sometimes easily overlooked, yet faithful and regular apologetics in the pulpit sets a certain tone in the congregation, making clear that false teaching and attacks on the faith will be addressed, and biblical orthodoxy will be maintained in the spirit of speaking the truth in love for the sake of edifying and protecting the body. Though this practice cannot guarantee false teaching will never find a place among the brethren, it is true that through regular preaching that explains and defends the Christian message, a congregation can and will gravitate toward consistent orthodoxy. Taylor offers historical support for this in his exploration of the role of apologetics in the first three centuries of the church, explaining that through the use of apologetics the early church stood firm against encroaching heresy by offering “justification for belief in and commendation of Christianity.” When faced with attempts by heretics to alter “one or more aspects of the deity, death, and resurrection reports as they related to Jesus,” these early apologists helped “establish the credibility of Christianity.” Likewise, when pastors commit to apologetic preaching today they help believers live within a hostile culture without sacrificing their distinctive beliefs. Perhaps one of the greatest though underutilized weapons in the preacher’s arsenal when it comes to doctrinal purity is the practice of regular apologetic preaching for discipleship.

Conclusion

Apologetic preaching as discipleship has much to commend itself to preachers, as does apologetic preaching as evangelism. What about the type of arguments used in apologetic preaching? In the next installment in this series we will consider why abductive argumentation is well-suited to apologetic preaching.

February 20, 2019

A Reasonable Witness: Apologetic Preaching as Evangelism

February 20, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Apologetic preaching as evangelism is the privilege of every preacher, and those who would do it effectively will give attention to worldview, word-and-deed, and proper mediums.

February 13, 2019

The Special Relationship between Preaching and Moral Apologetics

February 13, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

What Wainwright and others (e.g., Pascal) recognize is that there is a necessary relationship between a person’s rational and affective capacities that come together in forming faith.

February 01, 2019

Three Ways that Apologetics Helps Preaching

February 01, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

In the first article I made a plea for pastors to include apologetics in their preaching ministry. In this article I share three ways that apologetics helps preaching. As a lead in, remember that there are two general types of preaching that pastor do—preaching for evangelism and preaching for discipleship. As the three ways I present will discuss, apologetics can help with both types.

1. Apologetics Helps Overcome Obstacles to Faith in Evangelistic Preaching

In evangelistic preaching, obstacles to belief can be based on rational and passional barriers formed when a person is ignorant of the coherence and defensibility of the Christian message. Apologetic content in evangelistic preaching can help overcome such barriers to belief by addressing common objections to the Christian faith. For example, the central doctrine of the Christian faith is arguably the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:12-19). However, since the first reports of the resurrection were made to Jewish and Roman authorities there have been attempts to disprove the claim (Matt. 28:11-15). Each generation of Christians since Christ resurrected has also encountered detractors from the resurrection, and this generation of believers is no different. A recent survey in Great Britain concerning beliefs about the resurrection reveals that, of the 2,010 adults surveyed, 50 percent do not believe the resurrection happened, and of the respondents identified as active Christians, 43 percent do not accept the biblical account of the resurrection as accurate. Thus, when preaching a gospel message that is dependent upon the doctrine of the resurrection, the evangelistic preacher should anticipate that many in his audience likely reject the doctrine, and proactively defend is as part of a cumulative case supporting the Christian gospel.

2. Apologetics Helps Overcome Doubt and Equips Believers in Discipleship Preaching

In discipleship preaching, besetting doubts and answers to attacks on the faith of Christians by an unbelieving world can be addressed by including apologetic content in sermons. Through apologetic preaching for discipleship, believers are able to better overcome their own doubts (cf. Heb. 11:1-2), and to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). For example, as the barrage of writing from the New Atheists demonstrate—including the frequently vitriolic and one-sided attacks upon Christianity by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett—Christians are often susceptible to challenges based on a lack of preparation to answer apologetically-oriented questions. Believers might be harangued by opponents of the faith with questions such as: How could a loving God command the genocide of the Canaanites? or How could anyone believe a Bible that was assembled in the early third century by misogynistic, power-hungry men in league with Constantine and bent on controlling people? The researcher knows from personal experience with his own congregation that an accessible series of apologetic-infused messages targeting believers and addressing such concerns can provide great strength and resources to a struggling congregation. Such messages can also buoy the pastor’s spirit amid the persistent concerns and doubts raised by those he shepherds.

3. Apologetics Adds Overall Depth to the Pastor’s Ministry Abilities

In both apologetic preaching for evangelism and discipleship, the preacher will spend considerable time learning apologetic content and preparing it in such a way to make it accessible through his preaching. As this happens, the preacher’s apologetic knowledge and abilities increase and will usually overflow into his broader pastoral ministry. For example, learning apologetics concerning which theodicies are most helpful in addressing the problem of evil provides a pastor with greater ability to offer pastoral counsel when someone is looking for answers to personal or societal tragedies. Likewise, when a pastor becomes better equipped with apologetics in his preaching, he is likely to show an increase in confidence related to evangelism, and, in turn, become more intentional about evangelizing and encouraging his congregation to do the same. As he does so, it is reasonable to think that the same apologetics that helped his confidence rise will also become a focal point in teaching others to evangelize.

Conclusion

Other reasons attain regarding why preaching benefits from apologetics, but these three get the conversation started. In next week’s article I will present three ways that preaching specifically relates to moral apologetics. Until then, keep defending the faith in the pulpit.

January 25, 2019

Preaching and Apologetics?

January 25, 2019/ T. J. Gentry

Series Introduction:

What does a pastor’s preaching have to do with apologetics, if anything at all? Some conclude that the two are separate activities, that preaching is preaching, and apologetics is apologetics. However, as T. J. Gentry’s forthcoming series “Pulpit Apologetics” will argue, preaching and apologetics not only can go together, but should, and every pastor has an obligation to learn to bring apologetics into the pulpit. In this series the general relationship between preaching and apologetics is considered, as well as the special connection between preaching, moral apologetics, and abductive argumentation. Further, as a practical offering to those seeking to better unite preaching and apologetics, a model of sermon preparation will be developed for both negative and positive apologetic concerns. The series will feature a new installment every Friday. Don’t miss it!

Preaching and Apologetics

Sheila’s friend, Mary, invited her to a special Sunday evening service at her church designed to answer questions about the Christian faith for skeptics and seekers. As a curious non-Christian, Sheila was intrigued by the invitation and decided to attend one of the services. Mary’s pastor began each message at these services with a question about Christianity, and the night Sheila attended the question was, does God really exist? As Sheila listened to the message, the pastor explained that each person has an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong, and that this innate sense of morality is a clue to God’s existence. Sheila was challenged by the message and, though she did not respond to the brief gospel invitation offered at the end of the service, she did promise to attend again with Mary. The preaching Sheila heard offered answers to questions about God, and she began to seriously consider the claims of Christianity.

Raised in a Christian home, John regularly attended church and other activities, including participating in his youth group and actively sharing his faith in Jesus. Upon graduating high school John enrolled as a commuter student at the local state university and, as part of his course of general studies, took a course in cultural anthropology. His professor was an atheist and an outspoken critic of religion in general, especially Christianity, and soon the professor’s challenges led John to wrestle with profound and persistent doubts about the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible. Thus, when John’s pastor began a series of sermons on why the Christian worldview makes sense and the Bible can be trusted, John found answers to his doubts and his faith was strengthened. The preaching John heard helped him find reasons to believe, and he grew as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

What do these examples of preaching have in common? Though the primary purpose of the preaching in Sheila’s instance was to make a compelling case for Christianity to skeptics and seekers, and the primary purpose in John’s instance was to strengthen a disciple’s faith, both messages involved apologetics. However, is this a legitimate role for preaching, whether to those who are already Christians or to seekers and skeptics? Is there a nexus—a central link or connection—between apologetics and preaching for discipleship and evangelism or are these separate activities?

Preaching is a fundamental and regularly occurring expression of a pastor’s work within most congregations, both in terms of evangelism and discipleship. Wayne McDill concludes that “of all the tasks to be done in ministry, preaching is surely one of the most important.” Paul the apostle admonished his young protégé, Timothy, who was also a pastor and mentor to other pastors, to “give attention to…exhortation” (1 Tim. 4:13), to “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2), and to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). In these directives to Timothy, Paul describes the centrality of the pastor’s role as preacher—to exhort, teach, and evangelize. Haddon Robinson explains that the pastor’s call to preaching is so significant because “through the preaching of the Scriptures, God encounters men and women to bring them to salvation…and to richness and ripeness of Christian character.”

Yet, amid the prevailing post-modern and post-Christian milieu in much of the world, the audience to which the pastor delivers his message is increasingly ignorant of and unsure of the veracity of even its most basic elements. According to J. E. White, 23% of adults in the United States consider themselves as having no religious affiliation, and nearly 19% of adults claim to be former Christians. Add to these statistics the widespread veneration of philosophical and religious pluralism and one begins to recognize the challenge today’s pastor faces when standing in the pulpit and proclaiming the Christian message. As White aptly states, “It’s simply a cultural reality that people in a post-Christian world are genuinely incredulous that anyone would think like…well, a Christian—or at least, what it means in their minds to think like a Christian.”

Further, it is not difficult to see that God’s greatness and goodness are under attack directly and indirectly in various challenges presented by antagonists of the Christian faith. If God is great, the skeptic asks, then why are there so many examples of slavery in the Bible, and why would He order the slaughter of Canaanite women and children? If God is good, the struggling Christian wonders, then why did individuals kill thousands of innocent people in the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and why did an earthquake kill thousands in India? These are challenging questions that strike at the very heart of God’s character, and the Christian message offers answers that reflect sensitivity to the issues and assurance regarding God’s greatness and goodness. Preaching can and should help with these challenges to God’s character.

Thus, it seems reasonable and practical to conclude that preachers should expect to engage in various forms of apologetic encounters—helping answer challenges to belief posed by unbelievers while also helping strengthen the faith of believers. What a pastor should do and what a pastor can do, though, are not necessarily the same when it comes to apologetics, and this reveals a fundamental problem: Pastors may have little knowledge of apologetics in general, and less in how apologetics relates to preaching. For those pastors who do have knowledge of apologetics, they may not know how to integrate apologetics into their ministry of preaching in a holistic manner that avoids turning sermons into dense apologetics lectures or trite and simplistic messages lacking relevant depth and substance.

What, then, is a pastor to do concerning apologetics and preaching? The answer to this question provides the impetus for future articles in this series. In the next installment we will consider further the general rationale for the nexus of preaching and apologetics. Until then, remember that Peter’s command to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15) applies to everyone, including those who preach.

Articles

Are You a Pure Apologist?

Intellectual Purity

Methodological Purity

Visional Purity

Moral Purity

5 Reasons Every Apologist Should Be Confident and Grateful

According to His Righteousness

I am Samson (Judges 14)

My Dear Apologist, Please Be Holy.

More from this series

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Patient.

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Kind.

My Dear Apologist: Please, Be Yourself.

Book Review: What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

Risen from the Dead? A Sample Sermon Manuscript for Apologetic Preaching

If God, Why Evil?: A Sample Sermon Manuscript for Apologetic Preaching

A Model for Apologetic Preaching

Making the Case: Apologetic Preaching and Abductive Argumentation

Equipping the Saints: Apologetic Preaching as Discipleship

A Reasonable Witness: Apologetic Preaching as Evangelism

The Special Relationship between Preaching and Moral Apologetics

Three Ways that Apologetics Helps Preaching

Preaching and Apologetics?

Moral Apologetics

Most popular