5 Trends That Have (Re)Shaped My Christian Apologetics

I have been involved in some sort of theistic apologetics for a long time. I can recall presenting evidence for the existence of God while I was still in the process of moving from a general theism to a return to Christianity.

After seminary, I heavily embraced what is sometimes called the “Apologetics industrial complex” and I very much wanted to be a part of it. I met some of the influential apologists, attended the conferences, listened to the podcasts, and read the recommended books.

I am not cynical enough to say that this period of my life was a waste of time and that I reject all of those Christian apologetics resources. I value what I learned and I have retained some of what was once embraced.

But not all.

There was a time not long ago that I seriously considered completely giving up on Christian apologetics. What stopped me was memories of what it was like for me as a seeker and as an immature believer and the resources I wish I had.

So I still consider myself a Christian apologist and I am even writing a very personal book that is broadly apologetic in scope.

But I could never go back to where I was in the decades of approximately 1995-2015. I have lost any attraction to what I once embraced. I do not mean to condemn the brand of apologetics that was offered then and still is popular today. I just can not be that kind of apologist myself.

As I thought about this, I realized that this did not happen in a vacuum but actually was the result of certain things that were happening around the apologetics world.

Here are five trends within Christian apologetics that have changed my vision for what apologetics can or should be.

The Fall of Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias was one of the most well known apologists of the last few decades. While not the most academic, he made up for it with his creation of a well-oiled apologetics organization. The revelations of his sexual abuse were a hard hit.

Now some people might say “he was only human” and that “plenty of pastors get caught in sexual misconduct.”

But actually it was not what Ravi did sexually that really changed me. It was how he and other top leaders sought to cover it up, to destroy the victims, and to protect the organization. The thing that was of greatest value was not the truth but the flow of donations.

I was one of the earlier bloggers speaking out about concerns over Ravi Zacharias and I received a lot of pushback. I was very aware that speaking out could close many doors for me in the apologetics “industry.” But the truth is the truth.

Blurring of the Gospel With the Culture Wars

At one time, I listened to quite a few apologetics-themed podcasts. One of the things that I noticed early on was a defence, not just of the existence of God or the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Many were working just as hard to defend conservatism against the liberals.

One of the turning points was hearing a well known apologist speaking against a strong emphasis on helping of the poor, despite Jesus’ emphasis on it, because he had to integrate the war of the conservatives against liberals. Since liberals focused on the poor, it must not be quite right.

For some apologists, attacking environmentalism, critical race theory, and certain political parties are just as important as defending biblical doctrines. They might not even see a difference between the two areas.

For certain apologists, their mission is not just to defend Christianity but to defend a conservative worldview. Anything that threatens that conservative worldview needs to be addressed.

By the way, I would have a problem with this even if was a liberal worldview that people were tacking onto Christianity.

Apologists vs Apologists

One of the traditional elements of Christian apologetics is polemics. This comes from the word for going to war. It is more of an attack than a defence. This has been with us since the beginning, and the earliest Christian apologists attacked pagan philosophers and heretical teachers.

But what I have seen is an increasing trend of apologists attacking apologists. And this is with both parties being well within the evangelical camp. Neither one is teaching anything that would fall into the traditional categories of heresy.

I am the first to say that there is room for disagreement, even public disagreement. I believe the church is to be united but united with diversity rather than uniformity. But there is a difference between disagreeing over an interpretation and the level of antagonism that we have seen in recent decades.

A Move Away From Winsome Apologetics

When engaging in Christian apologetics, there are two things that need to be considered: content and tone. There are some great resources for content but what kind of tone will we use?

This is another case where some of the political discussions have bled into the apologetics discussions. Some Christians involved in public theology have made it clear that they see the time of winsomeness as having come to an end. “The situation now requires harsher means.”

When I overhear apologists talking or read what apologists saying, it seems that the goal is to humiliate the opponent. “Destroy the atheist” is seen as a nobler goal than building a bridge.

I have had conversations with people where they use Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel as support for this behaviour. But if you read on, Elijah also had those same prophets executed. Do they see that part also as our model?

The Idol of Certainty

When I first returned to Christianity, I wanted certainty. This is part of what drew me to Christian apologetics. I wanted every mystery solved and to have an answer to every question.

As I read from different apologists, I encountered plenty assertions of certainty, sometimes with not much behind it other than personal confidence or loyalty to a certain tradition.

“This is the way it is and you better not question it.” Because certainty is what is desired, certainty is what is offered. But the more that I have read and researched, the less certain I am about certainty.

Here is one example. Some conservatives want to date the Gospels very early, even in the 40s or 50s. Most scholars date them in the late 60s to mid-80s. Of course there are skeptics that want to push them into the second century.

Here is the truth. We do not know with certainty when the Gospels were written. See my post: The Dirty Little Secret About Dating the Gospels.

I understand that there would be an apologetic advantage to earlier Gospels and they would be reassuring for some Christians struggling with doubt. We may believe the earliest dates for the Gospels but asserting those dates dogmatically is not honest. And this is the same for those stating categorically the later dates.

Final Thoughts

So where does this bring me? I still see a need for Christian apologetics. There are seekers who are asking good questions. There are Christians who want to understand more about their faith. We are to have a response to any question asked.

But perhaps we need to take a step back. What exactly do we want to defend and why? How are we going to offer that defence and what is our desired outcome?

I actually hope to write a book one day that addresses more fully these points. I am not suggesting that everyone has to follow my path, but I cannot be the only one who struggles with what is out there now.

One of the foundations of my spirituality is that personal convictions need not be imposed on others. So I am not arguing for a dismantling of the apologetics industry. It is probably meeting the needs of a certain group of Christians. But not all.

My desire is to further the discussion and see where we can take Christian apologetics for the next generations.