How NOT to do Christian Apologetics

I recently received a very negative comment from an atheist on my YouTube video. The title of the video was “The Question No Atheist Can Answer”. Of course, I was talking about the Moral Law, and how purely from a naturalistic worldview, there can be no objective foundation for morals. I could tell from the tone (and the language) of the comment that I had really rubbed this person the wrong way. I mean they were really mad. So, I went back and watched the video to see how I had presented myself. I realized that I came across like a snarky, know-it-all. I was a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.

While I do believe the Moral Law argument is extremely compelling, and I think it is obvious from the philosophical evidence and our life experience that objective morality does in fact exist, I still should not have presented the information in the way that I did. I had no regard with how the information would be received by outsiders to the faith. I was strictly making my video for what I would call “my audience”, for people who were already Christians, for those I knew would rally behind the arguments.
 
In short, the comment made me rethink my approach to Christian apologetics. I don’t want to be the Tucker Carlson of Christian apologetics. While I agree with things Tucker says, I don’t want to present information like he does, where he is only speaking to people who already think like him, where there is no regard for bringing people to the discussion from the other side, and where there is no opportunity to actually change someone’s mind.
 
The goal with Christian apologetics is to make a reasonable defense for the faith in accordance with 1st Peter 3:15 (NASB), “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect”.
 
We love to make a defense for the faith. Most apologists are good at it. But we forgot about the second goal of Christian apologetics, we are to do this with “gentleness and respect”. We are not to tout our explanations of the Moral Law, the teleological argument, or the anthropic principle with a holier-than-thou attitude.
 
Now, we don’t need to water down truth to be gentler towards nonbelievers, that would be a grave mistake, but we should do it in a way that honors others as fellow image bearers of God. We must see every nonbeliever as a potential believer, no matter how far gone they seem. Most nonbelievers we know aren’t literally killing Christians, but Paul the Apostle was doing that, and he became perhaps the most influential Christian in the history of the world.
 
Two Groups We are Trying to Reach:
Ultimately, there are two different groups we are trying to reach and influence with our apologetic: (1) the saved, and (2) the lost. The Tucker Carlson attitude towards apologetics might do a great job of “rallying our base”. It might be encouraging for those who are already Christians, it might even keep Christians from doubting their faith, but it’s not going to reach the second group of people we are trying to reach.
 
We should model a Christian apologetic that extends an olive branch to those who disagree with us; that is graceful enough to allow them to come to our side if they change their minds. Perhaps we should start our conversations by asking, “Where do we agree on this topic of morality?” Then, once a positive foundation has been established, we can ask, “Where do we disagree on this topic?” Or “What would change your mind about that? What do you think about X, Y, or Z?” etc. We should ask honest questions and actually listen to what they say in response.
 
A simple question like, “What do you think about Jesus Christ?” can be eye-opening if we listen to what they have to say. We can then formulate our approach based on their actual perspective on the topic. I think people are more willing to believe than we might otherwise think, they just haven’t had someone take the time to listen to their concerns and provide meaningful, reasonable, and Gospel-centered answers to their questions.
 
When to Be Firm, When to Be Gentle:
There certainly is a time and place to be firm, such as in a debate format, or when the other person isn’t conversing in good faith. I think back to the multiple debates William Lane Craig had with Lawrence Krauss. In one of them, Lawrence Krauss had brought a buzzer, and he would sound the buzzer every time William Lane Craig would say something he thought was wrong, false, or misleading. It was one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard. WLC said later in an interview with Justin Brierley from Unbelievable that it was not a productive discussion, and that he wasn’t sure if Lawrence was even capable of having a productive discussion.
 
In some situations, the person you are conversing with has bypassed altogether any conception of mutual respect, they have forgone any opportunity to act like a normal functioning human being, and at that point, you must be extremely firm with them. You move from a mutual goal of reaching the person you are conversing with and the crowd, to simply just trying to reach the crowd. They have turned off their ears to a conversation and are just trying to wreck everything you say. It’s unfortunate, but it happens all the time in these types of discussions.
 
I think a great example of someone who knew when to be firm and when to be gentle was Jesus Christ. In His dealings with the Pharisees, He could be extremely blunt and firm, but then would turn around and be very different with others. It seemed He was gentler and more respectful with those who were seen by society as “unclean” or “sinners”. With His disciples, He could be extremely firm.
 
Jesus, in His sinless perfection, was able in each situation to behave in the optimal way, balancing firmness with gentleness, recognizing the context of who was listening and who He was speaking to, who could be helped and who had made up their minds already. We need to find this balance as well; it’s certainly not an easy thing to do.
 
In personal conversations, in personal witnessing opportunities, in YouTube videos that are hopefully going to draw people in who are on the other side as well as encourage those who are already Christians, I think we need to take a gentle, respectful, and firm approach. We don’t compromise truth, not at all, but we are mindful of our tone of voice. We should present our arguments from a position of humility (not as know-it-alls) with genuine love for other people and with an honest hope for their salvation as a foundation for everything we say to them.
 
I believe William Lane Craig models this apologetic almost perfectly. He is extremely kind and generous, and he never straw man’s other people’s arguments, or puts words in other people’s mouths. He allows others to speak clearly their positions and articulate their points of view, and then he debates clearly and gently the topic at hand. He is extremely effective and fair. I think he is a great apologist to look up to, especially to develop a humble approach to apologetics, which I think is an excellent reflection of Christ on display for the world of unbelievers.
 
James White is another Christian apologist that I believe is great if you’re looking for someone who provides a meaningful defense of orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the authority and reliability of Scripture.
 
I think it’s also important to be open to the fact that we still have unanswered questions; that there is still mystery out there and questions we may not have a perfect answer for. We should recognize the limitations of our argumentation and be cognoscente of where we can improve. If not, we will be stagnant, and we won’t grow as apologists.
 
Now, some people go too far with gentleness and respect, and they abandon truth. They don’t address counter-Gospel ideas or doctrines that lead people astray. They don’t confront false teachers and they don’t hold those in the faith accountable for their behavior and teachings. We cannot compromise on truth to avoid offending others; we just have to do it in such a way that we recognize the dignity of the person we are speaking with. We do it with gentleness and respect. With love. And true love stands on truth.
 
It is a difficult line to walk.
 
Depending on how you’re wired (whether you like confrontation or hate it), you may be prone to needlessly offending people, or you may be prone to compromise on truth. I don’t think we should do either. We shouldn’t needlessly offend people just to be controversial, but we shouldn’t compromise on truth to get along with others either. We should pick our battles wisely and focus on what’s most important in our dealings with other people, in hopes that they will come to know Christ as their Lord and Savior.
 
Because of how I’m personally wired, the challenge for me is to be more offensive. I am very much someone who tries to get along with others, and sometimes, this means I won’t address something that is false to ensure a pleasant interaction occurs. To make a meaningful apologetic to the world, we can’t do that either. We have to be confrontational.
 
Others that are more naturally confrontational need to challenge themselves to be more loving in their interactions with others, because sometimes they needlessly offend people.
 
Truth & Love:
If we don’t wield truth and love together, then our apologetic will not be effective. There are plenty of cults that have love but not truth, and they aren’t effective. There are also cultic groups that have truth, but no love, and thus they aren’t effective for the kingdom either. It is the same with us in our approach to witness to other people. If we are truth with no love, we are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal. If we have love with no truth, we aren’t going to reach anyone regardless.
 
God Changes Hearts:
At the end of the day, the ultimate thing that is going to change someone’s heart isn’t an argument, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit. The natural man knows not the things of God. The natural man is not capable of pleasing God. The natural man seeks only his own, not the things of God. So, in our apologetic, we must recognize that lost people aren’t going to be changed by us. They can only be changed by God. God can use our arguments and the Scriptures that we share, but it isn’t going to be how well we present information that determines how someone’s heart will be changed. We are just vessels, and it is God that brings the fruit.
 
And this is why we have to make the Gospel the heart of our apologetic. When we can share our testimony in a discussion or even a debate, we should try to do so. When we can share a Bible verse, we should do so. When we can talk about how the crucifixion and the resurrection are central to our faith, and what they mean as an offering of Grace to the lost, we must make the most of such an opportunity.
 
Make your Christian apologetics ministry a Gospel-centered apologetic, and it will be effective. Forget the Gospel, and your ministry will be worthless.
 
Cite: Faucett, D. (2023). How Not to do Christian Apologetics. Science Faith & Reasoning. Retrieved from: https://www.sci-fr.com/articles/how-not-to-do-christian-apologetics