Part Five: Are Religious Experiences Factually True or Psychological in Nature?

In his landmark book on religious experiences, philosopher and psychologist, William James, asked the question: “Is the sense of divine presence a sense of anything objectively true?” (The Varieties of Religious Experience, 337) In other words, are allege religious experiences real? Can people encounter Deity subjectively, or are such occurrences psychological in nature and void of objective reality? And if real, do religious experiences “point to truth” or are they merely “pointers of truth.’ In other words, do they reveal truth or confirm truth?

The answers to these questions make or break many religions, in terms of affirming their authenticity. Why? Because personal religious experiences are the sacred cow of numerous religions (i.e. not to be criticized or questioned), and the basis of their truth-claims. Most cults have as their source of truth the alleged religious experiences of their prophets. Similarly, personal religious experiences are the guiding force in many New Age religions and the so-called “Word Faith Movement.” Even well-established religions such as Islam and Mormonism rely on the religious experiences of their founders as their cornerstone of truth.

Now, before going any further, I need to say this. Just because numerous false religions rely on alleged subjective experiences as their source of truth does not mean that all religious experiences are bogus. Nothing can be further from the truth. Many religious experiences are counterfeit (they must be if they endorse a false god or false religious system), but it is undeniable some religious experiences are real (I’m speaking here specifically of Christians’). They can’t be brushed aside as mere psychological phenomenon, as some skeptics are prone to do. As theologian and professor of philosophy, J.P. Moreland, points out, “such experiences are common to an overwhelming number of people and they’re often life-transforming in a number of ways.” (Scaling the Secular City; A Defense of Christianity, 232) What are these encounters like? Moreland explains: They may take various forms, but most religious experience “allegedly” includes “some sort of direct apprehension of a personal Being who is holy, good, awesome, separate from the subject, and One upon whom the subject depends in some way for life and care” (Ibid).

Genuine religious experience moves one beyond mere intellectual acknowledgement. It triggers an emotional response rather than a cognitive one. It confirms God’s existence, His love and concern for His people, and His desire to have us walk with Him and to trust Him. Religious experiences, then, reveal truth subjectively rather than objectively. However, since I have previously expressed a concern for relying too heavily on subjectivism as a source of truth, we need to look at religious experiences critically—including the Christian religion.  ©

NEXT WEEK:  Evaluating Christian religious experiences will be the topic of the next two blog articles: Can they reveal spiritual truth or merely confirm it?”

Part Four:  Can Pragmatism (“Works for Me”) or Rationalism (“Makes Sense in My Mind”) Confirm or Repudiate Religious Truth?

 Pragmatism                                 

The pragmatic approach to acquiring truth centers on practical consequences. Something is true only so far as it serves a useful function. In particular, truth is determined by how well it meets human needs. However, just because something works doesn’t mean it’s the best option. A person can cut off his foot to save an infected big toe, and it works. But is that the best option? Pragmatism is especially dangerous if relied on to justify religious truth, because it only describes what appears to work rather than what may actually be true. In a world of contradicting religions, pragmatism is unable to discern which religion reflects spiritual reality because all religions claim to be true—to “work!”

A false religion may feel like it meets a person’s spiritual needs, when in fact it is only emotionally satisfying. Such feelings can’t reflect reality if they flow from a counterfeit religion rather than from God. Sooner or later this will become evident. The tragedy is, this discovery may not be obvious until it’s too late (Heb. 9:27). It is better to discover religious truth in this life, and be assured of eternal salvation in the next, than to be content with just feeling spiritually satisfied now.

Rationalism

The basic assumption of rationalism is that human reasoning, and human reasoning alone, is sufficient for acquiring truth. There are universal axioms and laws of logic that are the cornerstone of human reasoning and necessary for coherent thinking. When applied to religious truth, however, there are fatal flaws with relying on rationalism to confirm or disavow a religion.

Many religions—Christian and non-Christian alike—hold beliefs that are totally beyond the purview of rationalism. Can we rely on human reasoning alone to demonstrate the triune nature of God, the work of the Holy Spirit, the dual nature of Jesus Christ, the reality of Heaven, and so on? No. But does it “rationally” follow that Christianity is false? Of course not.

Unlike other religions, Christian truth-claims rest on a foundation of objective evidence that can be checked out—in particular the verifiable evidence for the truth and reliability of Scripture, on which our spiritual truth-claims rest. I’m referring to the Bible’s archaeological confirmation; the eyewitness testimony of its authors; confirmed fulfilled prophecy; the science of textual criticism, which has more than 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts to study that confirm the New Testament’s transmission integrity; and modern studies in astrophysics, molecular biology, information science—which support creation by design. (I describe all these evidences in The Christian Combat Manual).

As a means for determining or repudiating a religion, rationalism fails. Its basic premise that all truth is bound to human reasoning is an assumption that itself cannot be proven rationally—making rationalism a self-defeating proposition. We can’t reason ourselves to God; God must reveal Himself to us, which He did in the proven infallibility of Scripture. Ironically, only Christianity can claim its beliefs are “rational” because only Christianity rests on objective evidences verifying the authenticity of God’s revelation in the Bible.©

 Next Week we’ll investigate whether or not religious experiences are reliable ways to discover or confirm religious truth. Are religious experiences valid subjective encounters with God, or merely psychological in nature and void of objective reality? How do Christian religious experiences compare with non-Christian?

If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts, please join my blog email list. You will then receive notices the day I post a new blog. Go to www.danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Three:  Are Feelings, Intuitions, and Instinct Reliable Ways for Confirming Spiritual Truth?

Although we can distinguish between feelings, intuitions, and instinct, they are similar in that alleged truths are largely independent of reasoning processes. In the case of feelings and intuitions, truth is determined according to personal opinions. Here are a few examples.

On vacation in Sedona, Arizona, I talked to a woman who claimed a particular spot where we were standing possessed mystical energies conducive to meditation and to bringing a person closer to the god-force (whatever she thought that was). At such locales, she maintained, one is more likely to apprehend religious truth than elsewhere.

Some religious groups feel strongly that abstaining from sexual activity (except for the purpose of having children) and meat is necessary for a disciplined life. Yet others, including most Christians, feel just as strongly that sexual activity within marriage, as well as all foods, are God’s gracious gifts. Whose feelings are correct?

Nineteenth century transcendentalist, “John Muir, wrote, “John the Baptist was not more eager to get all his fellow sinners into the Jordan than I to baptize all of mine in the beauty of God’s mountains.” Apparently, Muir considered it intuitive that people can feel closer to God in the mountains than in church. Other religions disagree. The Mormons hold their temples so sacred that non-Mormons are not even allowed inside.

The danger with feelings and intuition is that they are not self-authenticating; that is, they neither encourage objective verification nor detect false impressions. They can just as easily lead to untruth as to truth. There must be some objective, verifiable criteria by which feelings and intuitions can be judged for their truth value.

Instinct

 Instinct can be thought of as programmed information; survival safety-nets that God has given humans and animal alike. But this is not “truth” in the sense that we are dealing with here.

There are instinctive truths, however, that God has specifically and innately given the entire human race. For example, all people are endowed with an innate sense of eternity, because God placed such knowledge in the human heart (Eccl. 3:11—and hence the worldwide phenomenon of belief in an afterlife with no indication of cross-cultural influences). The human race innately recognizes a universal moral code (even if suppressed) because God placed such a code in the human conscience Rom. 2:13-15).

The problem with these instincts is they can be ignored. In humanity’s fallen state, we have a propensity to be persuaded by our emotions and feelings to reject the true living God and worship false gods or even no God at all – as well as endorse immoral behaviors (Rom. 1:18-32).

In all three cases—feelings, intuition, and even instinct—the danger in appealing to them as confirmation for religious truth is their intrinsic  subjectivity. One can sincerely believe in something and be sincerely wrong. Fortunately, there is a legitimate and biblical truth-test for establishing religious truth—which we’ll look at in a future blog. ©

 Next Week:  If feelings and intuition are unreliable means for determining religious truth, how about just the opposite: pragmatism and rationalism? We’ll look at the dangers of these two avenues to truth in next week’s blog.

If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts, please join my blog email list. You will then receive notices the day I post a new blog. Go to www.danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Two:  Do Customs, Traditions, and Authority Figures Lead to Religious Truth?

Customs and Traditions

Customs are distinct behaviors that unite members within a group or culture and set them apart from other groups or cultures. When customs dictate behavior to the point where  they become normative as unwritten “laws” passed down to succeeding generations, they become traditions. As an avenue of truth, it is assumed that because so many people adhere to a custom or a tradition for a long period of time, that custom or tradition represents right thinking and right behavior (truth). Millions of people can’t all be wrong.

To some degree, customs and traditions play an important role in all religions. Most liturgical practices are part of religious traditions. Likewise worship services in most churches follow traditional patterns.

The problem inherent to this view, however, is that customs and traditions—religious or otherwise—may not lead to right thinking or right behavior, in spite of their acceptance. There have been many  religious practices throughout history that people find abominable today. No one in the civilized world, for example, believes that human sacrifices or self-mutilation or temple prostitution, as once practiced in some ancient pagan religions, are worthy of preservation or that such behavior reflects religious truth.

Authority Figures

 Unlike customs and traditions, which we normally take for granted because that is the way things have always been, authority is a conscious surrendering of one’s freedom to another individual or religious institution.

The problem with authority figures is there is no guarantee that the person or religious structure in authority is presenting truth. A characteristic of cults, for example, is a willingness of followers to vest complete and autonomous authority on individuals whom they believe are the source of final and complete truth and whom they believe derive their wisdom from God. This is done independent (and in spite of) any criteria which demonstrates the person or structure warrants such devotion. The result is the exultation of the authoritarian figure and the degradation of the follower.

Cult leaders invariably seek whatever means necessary to preserve their authority, and independent thinking or disagreement is always suppressed. As a result, many bizarre beliefs and religious practices are common among today’s cults—and many tragic happenings. Nearly a thousand followers of Jim Jones committed suicide because his authority became synonymous with religious truth. Millions of T.V. viewers witnessed the tragic end of the Branch Davidians barricaded in Waco, Texas, because followers submitted to the sociopathic impulses of David Koresh.

Humans (and human institutions) are fallible. Something beyond and outside human authority must be the criterion by which human authority is measured. Without such a standard, authority rests on the strongest, the smartest, the meanest, or the  most politically powerful. Truth becomes relegated to personal opinion, not to an absolute that transcends human feelings and capriciousness. In the spiritual realm, this absolute can only be the demonstrated reliability and truthfulness of the Bible—God’s Word. ©

Next Week:  What about feelings, intuition,  and instinct? Can any of these lead to religious truth? This will be the topic of next week’s blog article.

If you wish not to miss any blog posts, please join my blog email list. You will then receive notices the day I post a new blog. Go to www.danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part One:  What This New Blog Series Is About (Introduction)

Most of us have heard the old fable about five blind men who attempt to identify an elephant by touching various body parts: trunk, leg, tail, side, and ear. Each came up with a different conclusion: a snake (trunk), leg (tree), tail (rope), side (house) and ear (fan). None correctly identified the truth that the elephant was an elephant.

Two aspects of this story parallel the problems spiritual seekers encounter when searching for religious truth. First, the five blind men’s physical handicap can be likened to the “blindness” many people have due to erroneous religious worldviews. The five men thought they had discovered the identify of what they were feeling, but instead interpreted reality (the elephant) differently. Their worldview filter (blindness) prevented reality from being known.  Second, the five blind men were limited in their search for truth to just feeling. Lacking a more accurate truth-test (in this case, sight), or some means to verify their conclusions, it would have been virtually impossible for the blind men to discovered they were touching an elephant.

Here’s the application for this blog series. If the elephant represents religious truth (i.e. Christianity), then what the five blind men thought the elephant was represents false religious worldviews. A worldview filters reality according to its own presuppositions, and if the presuppositions are false, truth—religious or otherwise—will be distorted.

Like the elusive elephant, religious truth is not readily subject to verification. Moreover, methods used for determining truth in some areas of knowledge are not applicable to religious truth. It is essential that spiritual seeks recognize and apply the best truth-tests available. Only then can we demonstrate religious truth-claims beyond reasonable doubt. Without this approach, there would be no way to ascertain which religion, among all contenders, is truth.

If we can show that the truth-tests non-Christian religions rely upon are not applicable in the area of spiritual truth, it follows that their religious ideologies are false. This is a powerful argument against non-Christian worldviews. On the other hand, in a future blog, I will share the one objective truth-test that demonstrates Christianity is Truth beyond reasonable doubt—and it’s a truth-test that fails to support any other religious worldview!

Now, I’m not saying religious truth can be known by human reasoning alone. Indeed, God can’t be known at all unless He chooses to reveal Himself. Nevertheless, to the highest level of certainty attainable in the area of religious truth, we can “prove” that Christianity is the one true revelation from the one true living God.  This is the goal of my present blog series. ©

Next Week we’ll see why customs, traditions, and authority figures are misleading and even dangerous ways to ground religious beliefs.

If you wish not to miss a blog post, go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new article. I do not share email addresses.

Part Ten:   Keep the Right Attitude—Regardless . . .

Not long after I began my apologetic ministry, two Mormon missionaries knocked on my door, and I invited them in. The discussion did not go well for them, and they asked if they could return with their “superior.” I agreed, and the four of us met about a week later. As the three were leaving the second time, one of them turned to me and said, “You know, you’re the nicest person we’ve ever talked to!”

People who know me well would probably be surprised to hear this. I have a reputation of being rather upfront and blunt. My point is, that flattering comment does not accurately reflection my normal behavior when having fun discussing, say, debatable issues with Christian friends. I was being polite and respectful as any Christian should be when sharing with unbelievers. That’s how we’re supposed to behave.

But their comment brings to mind how rude and self-righteousness Christians can be. One can only imagine how many stories cult evangelists can tell about unfriendly, even belligerent, Christians. Part of the reason for this, as I believe the late Dr. Walter Martin aptly put it, is because the average Christian can be tied up like a pretzel in about five minutes by the average cultist. When this happens, it’s not surprising that Christians become frustrated, angry, and sometimes even hostile.

The lesson here is that being discourteous or rude does not create an environment that encourages the work of the Holy Spirit. I could have gotten angry and argumentative, but that would only reinforce their conviction that Christianity is in error. When people get rude and defensive with us, don’t we assume it’s because they know they’re wrong and can’t admit it?

The primary apologetic text in Scripture is 1 Peter 3:15: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [Greek: apologia] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB, emphasis mine).

Apologetics is giving a reasoned defense of Christian truth-claims, in particular the authenticity of the Bible and the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But a “reasoned defense” never includes quarreling. In religious discussions, arguing usually results in a win/lose situation: we may win the argument but loose a conversion. So we want to avoid being hostile, quarrelsome, or confrontational. As Paul instructs, apologetics should be done with “gentleness and reverence.”

Critical thinking and persuasive reasoning are tools of the trade in apologetics. And for a trained apologist, it’s not difficult to thwart arguments against Scripture or the gospel (see parts 8 & 9). Unfortunately, this does not automatically result in a conversion.

Christians have spiritual truth and the evidence to prove it. The problem is, no one likes to lose an argument. Good apologetics convinces without being offensive. By following this advice, Christian apologists will seem not only interested in sharing truth, but genuinely interested in the unbeliever as a person. This is the surest way to earn the right to share the gospel. ©

Next Week I’ll begin a new blog series titled “False Justifications for Religious Belief.” I will explore the various ways on which non-Christian religions and cults depend in order to justify their religious worldviews. We’ll see why each attempt fails to pass legitimate and acceptable truth tests and, therefore, are all blatantly in false.

If you wish not to miss a blog post, go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new article. I do not share email addresses.

Part Nine:   Don’t Be Intimated—Most Non-Christians Know Less than We Do

One of the biggest reasons why many Christians are afraid to engage in apologetics (or share their faith) is fear they will be asked questions they can’t answer. Usually (like most fears we have) there is nothing to be afraid of. The fact is, most non-Christians have little knowledge of the Bible, and few have read even a portion of it. Nor do they have well thought out arguments against Christianity. And what they think they know they absorb from popular culture—not from knowledge of the Bible. Hence, they seldom ask sophisticated questions or need in-depth answers. In fact, it’s best to keep our responses as simple and specific as possible.

In many cases, unbelievers are so ignorant of Christianity that they have a hard time even articulating their arguments—let alone offer any evidence for their beliefs. For example, when a non-Christian claims that the Bible is “full of contradictions,” he is seldom able, when asked, to point to one such contradiction. Nor is he familiar with solutions to alleged contradictions. He probably never studied the Bible and got his opinions from hearsay: “Everyone knows . . .”

This is not to say there are no astute non-Christians with difficult challenges. But most of the people Christians encounter are friends, relatives, co-workers, fellow students, and neighbors. Their criticisms are usually the product of anti-Christian sentiments that they pick up from print media, TV and movies, secular colleges and high schools, and so on. Seldom are their criticisms well-thought-out.

If you do encounter questions you can’t answer, or arguments you can’t refute, admit it. Our response to all challenges must be honest. However, not having a response at the moment is not the same as there is no response. Point this out. Assure the unbeliever that there is an answer to his question or argument and you will find it. This provides an opportunity to meet again. If you won’t be seeing that person again, research the subject anyway. Next time you’ll have a response if the issue arises.

And remember, even if you feel intimated God is on our side. We can still be pleasant, patient, and not argumentative. Never forget, whether we can express it well or not, we have the truth. Here’s where lifestyle evangelism can take over—we can be a good witness to Christ even if we can’t adequately answer an unbeliever’s challenge. And finally, take the pressure off yourself. We can’t “save” anyone. It is  God who convicts, convinces, and converts. We are merely instruments available for Him use.  ©

 Next Week I’ll end this 10-part series by stressing the importance of maintaining a good attitude, regardless of the issue or the person we are conversing. This isn’t always easy, but it pays dividends in terms of the illustrating the confidence and joy of being a Christian. I’ll give an example of this from my own experience early on in my apologetic ministry.

If you wish not to miss a blog post, go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new article. I do not share email addresses.

Part Eight:  Put the Burden of Proof on the Non-Christian!

More often than not in religious discussions, Christians find themselves on the defensive. Too often we are expected to defend our position on the issue at hand rather than the unbeliever. It shouldn’t be this way because we have the truth. The unbeliever has untruth. The purpose of this blog is to help change this by briefly explaining how to put the burden of proof on the non-Christian. We do this by challenging them to defend their view on the issue at hand.

This technique works on the premise that non-Christians hold certain presuppositions (assumptions) basic to their religious or secular beliefs that are in error. In other words, their beliefs are wrong because the assumptions they take for granted are wrong. Here are a few examples: “The Bible is full of contradictions!” “The Bible has been translated and recopied so many times it is no longer reliable!” “There is no proof God created the universe!” “There is no evidence Jesus resurrected!” “Evolution disproves God created life!”  “Science proves miracles are impossible,” and so on.

How do we respond to these kinds of challenges? Proverbs 18:17 provides an answer:  “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (NIV). We ask questions that help unbelievers see for themselves that their assumptions are erroneous and indefensible. Once they see this, we have a much better chance of getting them to reconsider the Christian position on the issue at hand.

Following the advice of Proverbs 18:17, listen carefully to an unbeliever’s view on a particular issue and identify inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and assumptions. Then point out these errors by asking them to response to a few questions. This places the burden of proof on the unbeliever, challenging them to explain what they believe, why they believe it, and to justify it.

I’ll illustrate this by briefly responding to three of the assumptions mentioned above. Of course real conversations will usually not be so simple. And obviously this technique requires that we know the issue thoroughly ourselves.

• “The Bible has been translated and recopied so many times it is no longer reliable!”

Response: “What evidence do you have to support that claim?”

Follow-up:  “How can the Bible be unreliable when the science of textual criticism demonstrates today’s New Testament is almost 100% accurate to the original Greek manuscripts?”

• “There is no proof God created the universe!”

Response: “How did you determine that?”

Follow-up: “There are only three possibilities for the existence of the universe. First, it came into existence out of nothing. But the laws of physics disprove this. They only show that nothing comes from nothing. Second, the universe is eternal. But the first and second laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology have proven the universe is not eternal—and virtually all scientists accept this. Third, and the only other options, God exists and He created the universe. Can you think of another option?”

• “Evolution disproves God created life!”

Response: “How does evolution disprove that?”

Follow-up:  “If evolution is true, what caused the order and design in nature to evolve out of the chaos and disorder of the primitive earth? What evidence is there that life emerged from non-Life (chemical evolution)? Why has the fossil record failed to produce transitional fossils between major groups of animals, such as fish and amphibian, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles and birds/mammals? For example, no half scale/half feather or half leg/half wing has ever been found in the fossil record.” NOTE: Be able to explain the difference between microevolution (which is scientific) and macroevolution (which has no empirical or paleontological support.)

When unbelievers fail to justify their erroneous assumptions, or indicate they haven’t considered our questions before and aren’t prepared to respond, the door is open to give the Christian perspective and evidence on the issue at hand. ©

In my book, The Christian Combat Manual; Helps for Defending Your Faith: A Handbook for Practical Apologetics (AMG Publishers), I provide more than three dozen examples of the typical assumptions non-Christians have about Christianity and provide several responses to each.

Next Week we’ll look at a common fear that prevents many Christians from engaging in apologetic/evangelism—and see why there is no reason to feel this way.

 If you wish not to miss a blog, please go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new blog article. I do not share email addresses.

Part Seven:  Know What You Believe; Know What Non-Christians Believe

To be effective in apologetics requires that we know what we believe and be able to biblically justify it. We must also know what the non-Christians we engage believe. Either one can entail applying one of two approaches:  a “defensive” apologetics or an “offensive” apologetics. Often, both tactics will come into play as the conversation progresses.

Defensive Apologetics:

The Lord has given all Christians the responsibility to evangelize the lost (Acts 1:8) and to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). In order to do this, we must be able to do three things:

• First, we must understand and be able to explain orthodox biblical doctrine—especially the essentials of our faith.
• Second, we must be able to demonstrate these doctrines from Scripture—back up what we believe in the Bible. This requires regularly and systematically studying Scripture.
• Third, we must be able to defend Christian truth-claims; that is, present rational and verifiable apologetic evidences whenever necessary.

This is defensive apologetics. It entails being prepared to respond to challenges and objections unbelievers raise, and to answer their “tough” questions.

Offensive Apologetics:

Whereas defensive apologetics is defending Christianity, offensive apologetics is challenging the unbelievers’ beliefs. In Part eight (next week), we’ll look at a key tactic on how to do this. For now, it needs to be seen that offensive apologetics requires an understanding of what unbelievers believe. As an illustration, it is helpful to briefly see how missionaries prepare for the mission field.

Before a missionary goes into a foreign culture, he or she learns as much as they can about that culture: religious beliefs, social customs, ethical behavior, religious and cultural taboos, and hopefully enough of the language to communicate. Such insights allow a missionary to discern how best to initiate an evangelistic strategy and share the Gospel in a culturally relevant way.

In a similar fashion, Christian apologists must learn what unbelievers believe. This is especially necessary for apologists witnessing to non-Christian religions and cults. It’s impossible to formulate an offensive apologetics unless one understands what other religions teach. This same tactic can be applied to secular ideologies. If you wish to engage an atheist, for example, you should be familiar with the arguments they will use in attempting to demonstrate God does not exist—and have a ready response.

The lesson here is be prepared. Do your homework. Learn what you can about the religions and the secular worldviews you are likely to encounter at home, work, school, neighborhood, and while at play. ©

Next Week we’ll look at what I believe is perhaps the best apologetic tactic you can learn. Instead of defending what we believe, I’ll explain how to put the burden of proof on the non-Christian. There is a simple and effective way to do this, which I’ll share next week.

 If you wish not to miss a blog post, go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new blog. I do not share email addresses.

Part Six:  Apply Evangelistic and Missionary Techniques

This means two things. First, as emphasized in previous blogs, the goal of apologetics is evangelistic. Its purpose is to remove obstacles that prevent unbelievers from seriously considering the Gospel. In this sense, apologetics is “pre-evangelism.”

Second, like all missionary work, apologetics involves seeking unbelievers on their own turf. In Romans 10:14-15 Paul writes:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

It’s up to Christians to bring unbelievers saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—wherever they are. Paul set the example. He sought Jews in the synagogues and Gentiles in the market places. He argued with the Greek philosophers before the Areopagus in pagan Athens (Acts 17). Indeed, Paul traveled much of the known world in his quest to share our Lord Jesus Christ.

In 1 Cor. 9:19-22, Paul provides guidelines on how an evangelist/missionary/apologist interacts with unbelievers in order to get a fair hearing for the Gospel. He writes:

      Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law [Gentiles] I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

By whatever means necessary, Paul endeavored to make the Gospel relevant and applicable to unbelievers regardless of their existing beliefs and customs. Likewise, we too can be apologetic missionaries. Our neighborhoods, work places, and social clubs are fertile missionary fields. We can invite unbelievers to our homes for supper, or to a church picnic, or some other activities where they will be around Christians and can feel comfortable asking questions. Like Paul, we can leave our comfort zones and seek unbelievers in “new territory.” This may include being guest speaker in a college classroom, participating New Age “fairs” (which many people attend looking for spiritual help), or offering a neighborhood discussion forum designed to appeal to unbelievers.

The goal in all cases is to present the Christian worldview by responding to misconceptions about Christianity, by answering questions, and by demonstrating the relevance of Christianity in a post-Christian world. As the late Francis Schaeffer said in The God Who Is There, “Apologetics should not be merely an academic subject, a new kind of scholasticism. It should be thought out and practiced in the rough and tumble of living contact with the present generation.” In sum, apologetics, as a species of evangelism and missionary work, means that we seek opportunities to share the Gospel and to defend our faith, as Paul says, “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). ©

Next Week we’ll see that to be effective apologists requires that we not only know what we believer, but what unbelievers belief. This is especially important for those who engage followers of non-Christian religions and cults.

If you wish not to miss a blog post, go to my home page, click on “contact,” send me your email address, and you’ll receive a notice every time I post a new article. I do not share email addresses.