Introduction to Apologetics: Why We Do & What Now

Why do apologetics?

We begin by seeking to answer why we’re having this course. It may seem out of order to ask “why” before “what,” but we need to make sure you have a grasp on the importance of what we’re doing before we get into the nitty gritty. As I plan to explain, there are many good reasons to come to faith. Likewise, there are many good reasons for defending the faith. We’ll cover a few biblical reasons here as to why we should practice apologetics. We’ll consider a few other reasons in a later discussion on our relational approach and conversational principles.

Loving God

To begin, we should practice apologetics because it’s one of the many ways we worship God. We are called to serve Him with all our capacities and to do all things unto the Lord and not unto man. Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 22:37 that the great commandment of the law is,  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” When most of us hear that, we hardly make it to the end of the list. If we’re honest with ourselves, we know how much a struggle it is to love the Lord with all our hearts. Our emotions and the way the our sinfulness manifests through them is more than enough to preoccupy us. But if we fixate solely on our hearts and tend to those alone, we would then be neglecting the rest of who we are.

Even though our wayward hearts need correction to stay rooted in God, we ought not to forget about the other parts of ourselves. God doesn’t want for us to compartmentalize our devotion to him, to give Him our adoration but hold back our intelligence for worldly interests. What do you think about most every day? Where’s your head? Surely if we should apply ourselves to learning about history and art, if we see the value in hitting the books to memorize anatomy or put in the hours to make sense of economics, if we fret over stock prices, the wording of an inner-office email, or crunching the profit margins of our company in the last quarter, we should think through the ramifications of our believing Jesus is Lord or others disbelieving that God could be an active participant in history. So, we should worship God with all that we have, including our minds.

That’s why we don’t just passively listen to the Word being preached. We take notes on sermons. When we’re at home, we read the Bible on our own. We study God’s word and seek to clarify any confusion that arises in that study. We talk it through with others. Similarly, we should confront the misunderstandings and errors that arise in other branches of human thought. God is the author of all truth. I’ll repeat that so that it sinks in: God is the author of all truth. Reasoning from and to the truth glorifies him. It’s why applying ourselves in rational debate in addition to proclaiming the good news is an integral part of loving the Lord as He made us.

Following Christ

Besides being part of the fulfillment of the great commandment, we should practice apologetics because it’s one of the many ways we follow Jesus. In addition to being our savior, He is our model. He wants us to do as He did, to go out and meet people, to get to know them, to love them, and challenge them with the Gospel. We need to be active participants in the world, be it contributing to the market or to the marketplace of ideas. When Christ prayed to the father in John 17:15-18, He said, “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” Did you notice Jesus asks the Father for our protection, not for our isolation? He did not isolate himself. He did not spare himself. Christ came to dwell in this world and to walk among its people, people who were hostile to him, and He laid down His life for them. He came to confront the world, to engage with it in the flesh. After Him, we are called to perpetuate His mission. Apologetics, in conjunction with evangelism, is one of the main ways we engage the world. It’s one of the main modes we serve God and embody the kingdom.

Being Disciples

Likewise, doing apologetics has been part of disciples’ outreach since the very beginning of the church. In the Book of Acts, Luke chronicles the Apostles taking the Gospel out into the world. Although they were not always eager to do so and although at times this mission cost them derision, imprisonment and sometimes their lives, the apostles and early Christians spread the word through a mixture of 1) testimony, offering reasons for the faith, and 2) defense, offering responses to criticisms. The Apostle Paul does this repeatedly, witnessing to crowds of jews, godfearing gentiles, and pagans. I hoope these writings helps prepare you to address the intellectual concerns of whomever God has placed in your life.

Lastly, no case for apologetics would be complete without reference to the Apostle Peter’s words in his first epistle. In Chapter 3, verse 15, he writes:  "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." I’ve read this quote many times. It has spurred me on through the difficulties and mental roadblocks I’ve run into to know that such preparation honors Christ as holy. Even more basically, I’m grateful for God’s instruction through His word and pray for the discipline to follow it.

To dwell a bit on the Apostle’s command, let’s observe three points about it: 1) Peter directs us to prepare reasons, 2) more specifically, Peter directs us to prepare personal reasons, and 3) Peter directs us to deliver those personal reasons gently and respectfully.

1) We are to prepare ourselves with reasons. I endeavor to share with you some of the reasons we have for believing Christianity, which is the source of our hope, or to poke holes in some of reasons others have for disbelieving. I should add here that Christian belief involves more than just rational assent, that the decisive role in faith is played by God’s grace as delivered to us through the Holy Spirit. But, by providing reasons to those who would ask us, we are providing what we can through conversation.  

2) As to those reasons, Peter emphasizes they are not just academic axioms or old saws. When we give an account, we are to articulate reasons that are personally relevant, they are the reasons that make a difference for you. We need these reasons to be compelling and vital,  to be part of a persuasive story. If you don’t find them convincing, how will someone who isn’t inclined to believe be convinced? We should equip ourselves to give an account of the hope that is in each one of us. By explaining our rationale in personally authenticated terms, we also show its personal applicability. We suggest how it is that someone else can develop a mind for God.

Lastly, 3) Peter did not command us without practical instruction. He spells out how this is to be done. Did you catch the conjunction he used? He said to make a defense, yet to do so with gentleness and respect. That yet goes to show just how unnatural it is for us, who, though we are Christians are still very much still fallen humans, to defend without offending. We’ll get into the practical brass tacks of apologetics more in our next class, but for now I’ll ask you. What does gentleness mean? For starters, don’t be a know-it-all. Don’t be flippant or dismissive. Show concern.  How can you defend with respect? It begins with legitimizing others. Respect means taking seriously any reasons people have for their distance from God, not interrupting them, etc.

I encourage you to keep Peter’s words in mind whenever you’re defending the faith.

What is apologetics in the post-Christian world?

In order to communicate, we must have a common language. Finding that language is increasingly difficult for us as Christians in America. The majority of people we would run into on the street are unfamiliar with Biblical content, a notion of moral accountability before God, or recognizing the need for a messiah, to name a few. That’s one of the effects of living in a Post-Christian world. Many of our peers don’t know what sin is, don’t believe we need to be saved from anything, and don’t believe in an afterlife. We can’t just throw out Christian doctrines at the start of a conversation and expect others to follow along. If we are going to speak with them, we need to be cognizant of their backgrounds, including their cultural heritage.

Now, we could spend ages dissecting and elaborating on the current edition of secularism, but that’s not why you’re reading this. You are probably here to learn about apologetics for a Post-Christian world. What do you all think of when you hear that term, post-Christian?

Instead of digging deep into every possible response you might have, I will go over a few points that will hopefully set a very, very broad framework for outreach. I encourage you to familiarize yourself, if you haven’t already, with the dominant cultural trends and intellectual forefathers of our distinctly American brand of secularism. If you’re not sure where to begin, grab a few of the headier magazines on the shelves or online out there, the Atlantic, the New Republic, or Slate. Read them critically. I’m positive you’ll encounter many of the beliefs and ways of thinking that exemplify post-Christian thought.

As you may or may not know, my educational background is in philosophy. I bring to this topic a certain knowledge of the history of the western world and western thought. The following is an attempt to marry philosophy and theology in a very rough history of the world, or rather, a brief intellectual/cultural history of the western world.

For there to be a post-Christian world, we assume there was a Christian world. It also stands to reason that as there was an after, so there was before. Accordingly, I have added a pre-Christian world.

With the timeline divvied up, we’ll work our way forward chronologically. Remember, we’re attempting to gain a rough understanding of the culture outside the church’s walls.

The world of ancient philosophy overlaps nicely with the pre-Christian world. During this era, the world is dominated by Greco-Roman values and beliefs. The Greco-Roman culture chiefly valued the virtues of honor, courage, and civil service. They valued themselves as superior to other races. In terms of belief, most Greeks and Romans believed in many gods, none of whom were morally upstanding but were instead cunning and powerful. Their philosophers didn’t heartily embrace their culture’s religion, but that’s besides the point. Suffice it to say, these were times dominated by neither Christian values nor Christian beliefs.

The birth of Jesus, as you know, is an absolutely cataclysmic event in human history. The Gospel goes forth and inspires a dramatic break with the ancient, pre-Christian values and beliefs. It follows that the world of medieval philosophy overlaps nicely with the Christian world.  During this era, the western world grows to be dominated, as you’d expect, by Christian values like altruism and beliefs like the trinity. This isn’t the time to review the details of this era, so we’ll leave it at that because, again, we’re after understanding our place in time.

As we progress through the 13th and 14th centuries and then through the Reformation in the 16th century, we run into the scientific revolution. Simply put, this marks a departure from but not a clean break with the Christian world. The scientific revolution is commonly considered the inauguration of the world of modern philosophy. But, notice it doesn’t overlap very nicely with the post-Christian world because many of the established Christian values endured and even informed the popular philosophies of the modern era. The philosophers of that period continue to praise the virtues of forgiveness, compassion, and humility. They continue to insist upon the reality of human dignity. Modernism continues to believe in a universal human nature that every individual takes part in and is dignified by. It is optimistic about humans, believing us to be basically good and capable of self and societal improvement. Modernism has supreme confidence in human reason and its access to the truth. However, the Christian beliefs that underpinned these values have been discarded in favor of what would come to be known as enlightenment thinking, which had its heyday in the 18th century. Enlightenment philosophers largely don’t believe the Bible is divine revelation. They deny the God who dignified us through creating us in His image. Briefly put, the Enlightenment  rejected, or at least dramatically curtailed, Christianity’s sphere of influence in human life while maintaining many Christian values under a different guise.

When we reach the 20th century, it’s time for the clean break. Once again, philosophy and culture align. Postmodernism is born out of the dismaying World Wars and their fallout in the  early to mid 20th century. At the point where postmodernism gains the ascendancy in the mid-20th century, the genetically Christian values are increasingly rejected. I’ll admit postmodernism is notoriously difficult to define. For our purposes, it suffices to describe it as a reaction against modernism as well as its Christian predecessor. One of the few areas where modernism and postmodernism agree is that God doesn’t exist. I’d argue postmodernism is more consistent with its disbelief in God, however, than modernism is. Having witnessed the folly of many of the enlightenment projects to create perfect civil societies and the brutality of cultures nominally allegiant to reason, postmodernism is a sobered philosophy. Rather than seeing our freedom as a positive thing, postmodernism is more likely to despair of it, to be dizzied and nauseated by our options and yet also suffocated by our prejudices and biases. Postmodernism is pessimistic about human nature, doesn’t believe humans can have knowledge of objective truth, and is skeptical about the possibility of meaning in the world.

I think you can see, after that brief overview, where our communication problems have arisen and why it’s so easy for the Gospel to get lost in translation between our Christian culture and our secular culture. It’s important to distinguish between modernist and postmodernist positions because, while they may at times arrive at the same conclusions, the propositions from which they’re drawn can be starkly different.  

From the above, I hope it’s clear we paint with too broad a brush when we depict our society as simply secular and portray all godless people as the same. Every person we meet is going to multifaceted. How much more so will the cultures of which they’re apart be? While it’s true that more people are dubious about the relevance or even existence of things like objective values or beings like God, they don’t all do so from the same perspective. Modernism and postmodernism uncomfortably coexist within our Post-Christian culture. While they’re at odds with each other over the credibility of reason and the goodness of humanity, they share a common enemy in religious belief.

So, why have I spent this time chronicling history for you? Because it’s important to understand where people are coming from when defending to them, and where they’re coming from is likely to be a modernist or postmodernist position. Both those positions are very much alive and well today. Modernism and postmodernism are forces in our culture, and people have adopted those stances without reflection. They simply absorb them because we’re so saturated with those assumptions in the news and in our classrooms and elsewhere.

I tell you all this in part because responding to the wrong position wouldn’t be the best use of ones time. Thus, to foreshadow a bit, a modernist position takes offense at the idea of hell because it holds that all people are fundamentally good, and therefore, could never warrant such punishment. A postmoderist position, on the other hand, takes offense at the notion of hell because it holds that there are no objective rules by which a person could be justifiably punished in the sense that Christian doctrine explains Hell to be. Discussing the fallenness of man would be more important in defending against the modernist whereas discussing God’s justice would be more important in defending against the postmodernist.

(return to Apologetics page)

How the Other Side of the World Can Be Close to Home

In high school, when I judged myself to be at my intellectual zenith, I formulated an objection to the religion that was frequently foisted upon me. It went something like this: 

You say that Jesus is the way to salvation—not a way amid the various valid ways that people are currently taking—but the lone way to be saved. You say that I secure salvation by asking Jesus into my heart, by pleading for his assistance, and believing him to be sufficient for my forgiveness. Thereafter, I can be admitted into Heaven and eternal life will be mine because I'm no longer condemned by the bad deeds I've done. Okay. Let's assume for the sake of argument that's all true. There are people—a great many people—who can't call on the name of Jesus because they can't so much as pronounce it. They've never heard his name. They have no idea who he claimed to be because they speak an obscure dialect, live in a country that doesn't let Christians proselytize, or because another religion or way of thinking is already so natively dominant they can't make heads or tails of monotheism, let alone the uniquely anthropocentric version of God incarnate you propose. These poor humans, who haven't heard or can't understand—through no fault of their own, mind you, because of a freak accident of time and space were born outside the bounds of your faith—can't ask Jesus for anything. They have no access to the way, so they can't be saved. If they can't be saved, then they must be damned. Therefore, your God damns innocent people to eternal suffering unjustly. I want nothing to do with him even if he wants something to do with me because I'm no better than my foreign brothers and sisters—some of whom must be far better people than me, by the way—and I'd rather stand in solidarity with them than align myself with intolerant people such as yourselves who obey an intolerant God.

That was my objection, though I may have phrased it more delicately in the company of saccharine Christians who struck me as ignorant but nevertheless well-meaning.

Years since, with my intellect not so appreciably declined and my experience incalculably increased, I find myself adhering to the very faith I belittled. It's incumbent upon me to satisfactorily respond to that argument I believed insuperable. I write this apology to my trenchantly agnostic former self. I publish it in the hopes that this layperson's rejoinder may benefit others who are currently as skeptical as I once was. With them I sympathize and for them I pray.

Before I can begin to unpack the manifold objection, I need to offer a preface. First and foremost, I must assert the Bible does not directly, explicitly address what will happen at the final judgment to those people who have not heard the gospel. My most honest, concise answer when asked about their fate is, "I don't know exactly." You may bristle at my admission and its bald inadequacy. You may claim I'm being disingenuous or evasive, that I'm committed to a vision of the future that involves their relegation to torment and hell-fire, but I'm not. I do not know. As implied by God's silence on the question, it's not for me to know. God does not reveal everything; he reveals what we need to know to follow him. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

My ignorance is not unusual. It is human. Although ours is a time suspicious of uncertainty, those suspicions alone do nothing to alter our epistemic limitations. One of the ways Christ liberates his followers is by freeing them from the demand of total self-assurance. After Jesus' example, we submit to the Father's will and believe the truth he speaks, even—perhaps especially—when the details are mysterious. There's no shame in lacking a complete theory of everything, a system that compromises coherence and consistency in a vain attempt to close the circle of knowledge. That is not our place. The weight of the world is not on our shoulders but, mercifully, on God's.

What I do know is that no one can enter into everlasting life without being covered by Christ's sacrifice. Christians affirm Jesus's unique status as the sole securer of salvation. By his crucifixion, death, and resurrection, he reconciled God and humankind. Christ made and continues to make it possible for imperfect, sinful creatures to be in the presence of the perfect, sinless Creator. The Apostle John states as much when he writes, "He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

What I do know is that if someone is in Heaven, it's because of Jesus. Moreover, I know that, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." (Romans 10:9-10). Although the preceding two paragraphs sound repetitious, they aren't.

There is a subtle but crucial difference between the objective and subjective fact of salvation. Christ's sacrificial death made salvation objectively possible for humanity. Without it, we could never be near God. Faith is the subjective means by which a person, with God's grace, can confidently claim salvation for him/herself. Thus, it is possible for someone who does not know Jesus, who has never heard of or read the Bible, to be saved. Despite lacking clear, subjective faith in Christ as their savior, God in his just judgment can blot out their sins with Jesus' sacrifice. When pressed as to why God would spare a given soul outside of the gospel's earshot but not another, I would say, "Aside from God's merciful character, which is displayed over and over again, I don't know the specifics. God does." 

What follows is my longer answer, as best as I can organize it, to my objection. I attempt to glean from Scripture more elaborate justification for my disagreement with those who would accuse God of treating people beyond the Christian diaspora unfairly. 

Reply 1: Your Objection does not properly account for God's Justice

You make too great a leap. From want of God's special revelation as contained in the Bible, it does not follow that a person is condemned. That would be unjust. Contrary to your conclusion, God is not unjust. From the beginning of the Biblical narrative to the end, God's justice is established and reestablished. Moses described him to Israel saying, "A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4) Jesus explains, "my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me" (John 8:16). The angels in Heaven proclaim, "his judgments are true and just" (Revelation 19:2)

God's judges in light of the extent of one's knowledge. Those who are more knowledgeable will be held to higher standards because responsibility increases with understanding. Jesus illustrates the point in an exchange with the Apostle Peter. He tells Peter punishment will be less severe for people who knew God's will for humanity less. (Luke 12:35-48). The parable's emphasis is on the consequences for people who have heard God's Word. Jesus concludes his story with these words of caution, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (Luke 12:48) This principle is in keeping with fairness and does not affront our conscience. Later, the Apostle James warns teachers of the gospel will "be judged with greater strictness." (James 3:1) We see from these repeated emphases people who have heard are not let off easy for their exposure to the gospel.  On the contrary, they are more culpable for their sins.

As mentioned above, the Bible does not emphasize the contrary state of unknowing. Still, we may draw a tentative inference from the material available. Luke speaks God's willingness to forgive ignorance. He says, referencing the world before Christ's incarnation, "[t]he times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) So, God may forgive ignorant transgressions if the ignorance was beyond a person's power to remedy.

Further, you presume God is as oblivious of these people as these people are of Him. From your summation, God is solely concerned with whether or not someone has said the magic words. That is a gross misconception. There is nothing magical in professing the name of Christ. Indeed, Jesus warns people against disingenuous use of His name. (Matthew 7:21-23) Faith is more than an utterance or incantation. It's an inward condition that manifests in speech and deeds.

God sees more than behavior. The Being who brought us into being knows us better than we know ourselves. God, who comprehends all truth and is all truth, knows what we will do before we do it. God understands us with an intimacy and completeness we lack even in our most concerted introspection. Paul writes Christ at the time of judgment "will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart." (1 Corinthians 4:5) In this disclosure, our desires, thoughts, and plans will be laid bare. It is from this evidence, from all that could be accurately predicated of us, that God will judge. Empty words alone will not exonerate anyone.

You underestimate God's capacities. His knowledge extends to the hypothetical. He knows what we would do if given an opportunity. Jesus demonstrates this sort of knowledge when he castigates the residents of one city for their skepticism. He assured them, had the same works been performed in the presence of other cities, its citizens would have repented. (Luke 10:13) It follows that God knows how a given person would react upon hearing the gospel. God knows that there are people who, if they heard of Jesus, would immediately believe, others who would hear and immediately disbelieve, others who would be skeptical and wrestle with belief for years and, in the end, assent, and still others who would undergo the same protracted, sincere struggle and ultimately reject. This means that God's just judgment of people is not based on accident such as location, but on essence, on whom a person most sincerely has been, is, and would have been.

Reply 2: Your Objection does not account for natural revelation

You did not recognize non-scriptural avenues of divine knowledge. God does not solely reveal himself through his word. Although revelation in the Bible is the fullest, most complete and direct vehicle of the knowledge of God, it is far from the only means. The wider world he created proclaims him in its beauty, design, and majesty. Humans, his prized creation, are pulled toward him in all their capacities—their appetites, passion, and reason (both practical and theoretical).

In my most trenchant resistance to faith, I was at a loss as to how anyone could ever acquire religiosity outside of a community of believers. Faith presented as a hereditary trait. The Christians I knew came from Christian families where belief in the miraculous had been inculcated for generations. Like any other people group I encountered, Christians tended to associate with other like-minded people. Insularity fostered pious belief, tempered serious doubts, and spawned a confusing amount of shorthand jargon. Although not so far beyond the territory as the foreigners I cited above, I was excluded from this culture with no clear entrance in sight.

My inability to conceive how a person could come to the precipice of faith on his/her own was itself a product of enculturation. We moderns so commonly belittle and stifle the nascent yearnings after God, we forget how natural they are. Our desire to know our world and our place in it, to be understood by another, to cherish and be cherished—these all manifest without the slightest schooling. Curiosity, wonder, and awe don't only terminate in the internet or science textbooks when doggedly pursued. We want to worship more than ourselves. We search for causes to take up and groups to be incorporated within. Regardless of their strength and persistence, however, we've learned to starve these impulses of the food that sustains.

Whenever a person reared in contemporary America entertains a notion with overt reference to something metaphysical, part of him wants to recoil. He feels ashamed for being so retrograde. He is gullible for listening to himself. He is superstitious for thinking his petitions heard. To the longing for evil to be overcome, to our insatiable appetite for life without end, the well-educated voice in our heads says, "It is not humanly possible. Awaken from your dreams. Embrace the lowered horizons." What heartbreak! And yet how often do we relent? We douse these desires and leave them to smolder until extinguished. We dismiss our aspirations for being childish as if concerning oneself with solely physical, practical matters was the mark of maturity.

Ask yourself, nevertheless, is hope so faulty? Is the terminus of our deepest desires always a fiction? Must it be so? For the person of faith, it is not. Critics would say that believers are being overwhelmed by irrational feelings and baseless thoughts. To say the object of our hope feels true or we think it's true is atrociously incomplete, though. There is a wholeness to faith that transcends the sentimentality empiricists deride. Not just head, heart, or body are engaged—the sum total is. When we do not succumb to the easy criticisms, we are rewarded. "[S]eek, and you will find." (Matthew 7:7)

The Psalmist David writes, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Psalm 19:1-2) When one is filled with joy for being alive, for seeing that life renewed in the buds of spring, for hearing a birdsong interrupt an unhappy walk, for feeling the warmth of a loved one's skin or the tickle of grass when splayed out on a lazy afternoon, for smelling the sweet bouquet of a crape myrtle—whatever it is—we are naturally aware that "[e]very good gift and every perfect gift is from above." (James 1:17) Even when we don't know who to direct our gratitude to, we are grateful. If we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to natural splendor, if we don't draw the reigns tight on our reverential response at its intricacies and astounding scale, we are overtaken by the pursuit of our maker even when we don't know him.

Paul speaks to the innate desire for communion with God in his address to the Areopagus. After studying and engaging with the Gentile culture (the culture outside of Israel) Paul concludes the Romans are unwittingly worshiping the one true God. He says this is possible because God, "made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him." (Acts 17:26-28)

Untrained human sentiment can be an avenue for natural revelation. Every instance of love, charity, good will, and mirth has divine origins. God is the progenitor of love. He is defined as love. (1 John 4:8) Christ condensed all his Father's commands down to one verb and two nouns: love God and neighbor. (Matthew 22:37-39) The Apostle John states the case broadly and powerfully, "whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." (1 John 4:7) Our inclination toward kindness and our attraction to love are godly. The ember of altruism was sparked by our generous creator. Love is the font of motivation we need to act how know we should.

That there is peace and concord among foreign nations is not a counterargument to God's existence. It's a testament to the natural law God instills in us. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul identifies the conscience as attuned with God's revealed commands. "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16) Our innate sense of equity is a unifying gift. When heeded, when trained by experience and reason, we grow in righteousness, are better suited to cooperate with our fellow men and women, and fertilize the soil for the seed of the gospel should we be blessed to have it cast over us.

Reply 3: Your Objection does not account for God's inclusivity and human equality

God does not play favorites as you presume. Despite our apparent diversity, we are essentially alike. Biblical language is frequently universal in its scope, referring to the sum of humankind. All members of humanity have a privileged place in the universe. The triune God resolved at the beginning of creation, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26) Each individual is bestowed dignity from his/her divine semblance. We are able to relate to our God because of the germ of similarity.

God desires for all people to accept and worship him. His desire is not from neediness or insecurity. It is from a superabundance of charity. (John 3:16) We will never know peace without him because we were created to be incomplete on our own. We were created to be incomplete so that we would seek him and be made whole in him. Our obedience restores the proper order of creation.

We are not only blessed by our shared human nature. We are all of us blighted by it as well. You do not correctly recognize this when you say that some of these distant people are better than you are. While this may be true in one sense, it's false in another. Some have sinned more than others. Nevertheless, all humans—save one—have sinned. God's justice demands punishment for sin. We are in need of reconciliation with God, not just those who have been exposed to the Bible. Paul says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) We disagree, then, about merit and innocence.

Even the meek, gentle foreigners of your imagination have gotten angry, caused harm, lied, coveted, etc. To suggest these infractions are minor is to underestimate the radical difference of perfection from the grades of imperfection we encounter on earth. To suggest God is not a party to the disputes is to discount his total interest in creation. All these offenses are not simply against other humans but also against the being who wrought them. For this reason, Jesus explains, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." (Matthew 23:40) Even intrapersonal conflict, such as lusting or loathing in private, betray our God whose economy of love is built upon a foundation of proper self-love. There can be no true love of neighbor as yourself when one abuses his own self. In self-harm, we fail to acknowledge God's possession of us. (1 Corinthians 19-20)

The greatest and definitive atonement for sin was accomplished for everyone throughout the duration of history by Christ's death. Paul writes, "[f]or the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." (Titus 2:11) In Paul's words, we hear echoes of the objective fact of salvation referenced above.

The healing of the rupture between God and humankind enables humankind to be unified as well. Christians should be agents of this reconciliation in the societies they've been placed. We are told to be welcoming and hospitable to others as our Heavenly Father is. Paul in his first letter to Timothy tells his audience to pray for all people, within and outside the faith. He explains that doing so pleases God, "who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." (1 Timothy 2:3-6)

Reply 4: Your Objection does not account for Jesus' Great Commission

Christians ought not to be satisfied with the world divided into evangelized and unevangelized camps. The reality of souls wandering beyond the reach of the church should pain every follower of Christ. As followers of Jesus, an itinerant preacher when on earth, we should preach wherever we go. We have a mission to pursue everyone, near and far, and share the gospel with them. Missionaries are making inroads around the world to that end. They are serving others, feeding others, learning others' languages, preaching to others, and doing the hard, time-consuming work of Biblical translation. Some Christians not actively participating in mission work support their ministries through consistent charitable giving. Regardless of financial resources, Jesus tells them to let their light shine within their immediate circles. (Matthew 5:16) Love of neighbor involves concern for his or her spiritual well-being.

Christians shouldn't be complacent with a divided world because God is not. He sent his only son to teach the necessity of repentance. He has charged us with spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth. Jesus says, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47). His departing words before ascending to Heaven were also about preaching the gospel. He instructs his disciples, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28-19-20) The church was established to carry out Christ's commission. (Ephesians 3:10)

As I showed in my third reply, God wants everyone to return to him. If we Christians grieve over our estrangement from our fellow humans, how much more so does God? We know how pleased God is when a person repents. Jesus explains to his disciples, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7) From this, we can infer his anguish over those who willfully elude him.

That Jesus has not yet returned demonstrates God is granting his church more time to spread the word. Peter writes, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) Until his second coming, we must be diligent in our witnessing.

The commission is consistent with God's character. The way his Kingdom grows on earth is in keeping with God's commandment to love each other. As John succinctly states, "if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (1 John 4:11) Rather than be judgmental at first blush, Christians are taught to be forgiving. Paul directs, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32) With loving patience, we should fulfill our evangelical purpose.

Reply 5: Your Objection does not account for Christ's call upon the Objector

The whole of your objection, while deserving consideration, is disordered. You cannot, as you put it, "assume for the sake of argument that's all true." Either it is true or it is false. Faith is not an imagined debate. Until you deal with Christ, you are preoccupied with less personally consequential matters. The Bible warns against this kind of distraction. It discourages us from taking undue interest in others. Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter cast his eyes about with jealousy at other disciples, saying, "[...] what is it to you? You follow me!" (John 21:22). Elsewhere, Jesus warns against comparative assessment. Jesus explicitly forbids the hypocritical judgment of others in the Sermon on the Mount as a hindrance to personal improvement. (Matthew 7:1) In the parable of the vineyard workers, a vineyard owner rebukes day laborers for concerning themselves with the wages of latecomers. (Matthew 20:1-16). These and other statements clearly focus the scope of initial concern on self. This is why Paul exhorts us, his contemporary audience, to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" with God's help. (Philippians 2:12)

Like looking off at the horizon or watching others can cause us to stumble. We must arrange our own affairs in sufficient order before we can properly acknowledge, let alone serve, others. The requirement is analogous to principles of triage. The whole body is worthy of treatment, but mending the extremities before the vital organs endangers both.

You think you have side-stepped the confrontation by pointing to God's treatment of far off people, but you haven't. You cannot evade personal responsibility through misdirection. Currently, you have rejected him without making an honest effort to get to know him. Moreover, as a person with access to the Bible, to churches where Scripture is taught, and to congregants who would be willing to aid your learning, you are able to enter into a relationship with him. Your culpability is greater than the people with whom you're concerned.

What I was attempting to do with my objection was deny the possibility of salvation without considering the God-Man who offers it. I wanted to keep the invitation unopened. I was claiming the call isn't for everyone, so it isn't for me. At the time, I took this to be the more rational and tolerant position, rational because it doesn't presume exceptionalism (that is, that I am so special by my own merit that I would be picked for the winning team) and tolerant because it doesn't participate in the condemning of vast populations who, for all I knew, had done nothing wrong. 

As the wrestling match continued, it became clear to me that I was not suspending judgment. I was rejecting the call without properly understanding it. My unwillingness to trust the Lord kept me from hearing. My antagonistic stance prevented me from being touched by the truth. Jesus did not solely come to judge the world. He first came to redeem it. As Jesus frames his mission, "If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." (John 12:47-48) Although when I was lodging my objection I had not heard his whole speech, I had heard enough to be cut off for my lack of interest.

Jesus declares, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)  His beckoning is universal because everyone qualifies. Who among us can truly say he does not labor? Who among us can truly say she is not heavy laden? If anyone believes he is without toil, give him more time. Let him age. Let him advance toward the grave with the hollowness and brittleness of mortal life in his bones. If anyone believes she is not heavy laden, give her more awareness. Let her reflect. Let her weigh the contents of her existential requirements against the restrictions of where she now stores them.

Earnestly search your soul. Examine this world. Pursue to the utmost its chronicled wisdom. Undertake any of these tasks and you will find much need for the solace only Christ provides. Begin with him. He extends his redemption to you. Christ's call is universal even if some haven't heard it and still more don't heed it. His call continues to go out, written in Holy Scripture and spoken by his disciples. It is constant, a note held without rest until the end of time.

Conclusion

Defense only benefits a team/player that is losing to the extent that it buys time for the offense to overcome the deficit and secure a victory. Defense, on its own, doesn't win games for the simple reason that it doesn't score. The same is true in debate as it is in sports. A person is not won over to a position because the position is well-defended. If a person is dubious from the start, then defense's end is to brings him/her to neutral ground where the game is won or lost. The position must have positive, vital truths to break the tie. 

My aim here has been to make up ground. If I have not advanced, I am sorry. I have failed you. Attribute the defeat to the messenger, not the message. Faith and conviction, the offense of religion, belong to God alone. He confronts. It is God who calls, who is welcomed or spurned, and it is him whose victory is certain.

(return to Apologetics page)