Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Why Is Offensive Apologetic Surprisingly Non-threatening? And an Example from the Evolution/Creation Debate

This week’s blog is the third of three benefits for applying offensive apologetic tactics when engaging confirmed unbelievers. As said previously, the goal of apologetics on the offense is to get unbelievers to conclude for themselves, rather than being told, that their present religious or secular beliefs on a particular subject are inadequate. Because unbelievers reach this conclusion primarily on their own, we don’t come across as trying to clobber them intellectually.

Offensive apologetics avoid a pitfall common in apologetic evangelism: raising the ire of non-Christians. When people feel shoved into a cerebral corner where there is no way out but to admit they’re wrong, they seldom do so. Instead, they get angry. Or they shut down entirely and refuse to debate any further. Or they cross their arms and irrationally reject the Christian view despite the evidence. As theologian Alister McGrath put it, “People find it difficult to change their minds if they are made to feel it is a win-or-lose situation. Bad apologetics creates the impression that changing your mind is equivalent to losing an argument. And nobody likes losing argument—especially in public.” (Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths, 90).

Apologetics on the offense challenge unbelievers to reexamine their position without hammering the Christian point of view down their throats. We’re not lecturing; we’re asking questions. It encourages unbelievers to accept the Christian solution through their own reasoning channels. It tactfully reveals their viewpoint can’t resolve the same challenges they raise with Christians. It gives them a way to admit defeat on their terms.

Let me illustrate this principle. Suppose you are engaged in a discussion on creation versus evolution. Let’s see how the defensive and offensive approaches differ:

Defensive:  Let’s me give you facts. There are no verifiable fossils that show reptiles evolving into birds. Moreover, probability studies prove that mutations—given the age of the earth in evolutionary terms—can not account for the development of higher species from primitive species. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that life aroused from non-life in some imaginary chemical soup that supposedly existed before life on earth. The whole theory of naturalistic evolution is ridiculous and can’t be proven!

Now, let’s apply this same debate using offensive apologetics:

Offensive:  Let me ask you a couple of questions about evolution. I’d like to see how your view explains a few things I think the creation model explains more easily. For example, evolutionists claim reptiles evolved into birds. But no half-leg half-wing or half-scale half-feather fossils have ever been found that would indicate such evolution occurred. So how can evolutionists make that claim without verifiable fossil evidence?

I’ve read that probability studies demonstrate the earth isn’t old enough for mutations to account for the emergence of higher life forms from lower life forms. I curious, what evidence do you have that contradicts these studies?

I’ve recently read there is no known mechanism in nature that can cause life to spring from non-life. How can evolution claim that life arose from nonliving chemicals when there is no empirical evidence to support it?

Which response is less threatening? Making assertive statements (even if accurate) that inadvertently disparages evolutionists and likely shuts down productive discussion? Or asking legitimate questions that encourage evolutionists to rethink their assumptions, which can lead to an open-minded discussion of the creation model? Which approach is more likely to encourage a future opportunity to share the Gospel? ©

Next week we’ll look at the kinds of questions we can ask non-Christians that encourage them to reevaluate their misbeliefs about Christianity and their own worldview assumptions.