How would you structure an apologetics program for

[Windfish]

…a parish community that does not know the Faith very well? It seems to me that, before you defend something, you must know what you are defending. However, that no longer is apologetics. That is catechism.

So you see my dilemma. I and a few others are planning on introducing an apologetics program to our parish, and I am wondering about the best way to structure it.

Someone suggested that we can bypass the whole issue by not organizing the program like a curriculum in a school but by topics. One meeting will be about atheism and another about Protestantism and so on.

What are your ideas?

 

[puzzleannie]

we used the Basic Apologetics series, and began with the first book. It is both a refresher course on Catholicism 101 plus systematic treatment of common questions or objections to the doctrine. Go to the CA homepage for information. YOu do not say the age level you are addressing. OUrs started as a post-confirmation class for jrs & srs in high school and has evolved next to include young adults, now has those of all ages HS on up. We alternate apologetics topics with salvation history (Our Fathers Plan, will try great bible adventure next year).

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I would go by topic. Check out this link:

catholic-productions.com/store/audio/pitre/index.html

I have a lot of stuff, by a lot of different people. Dr. Brant Pitre’s sets are the best I have seen. Advanced enough for me to learn new things, easy enough to understand that a complete beginner can get it (my wife is a Cradle Catholic getting back into her faith, she loves them). They are taken from his university courses and are phenomenal. Orthodox, backed by fathers, Catechisms (New one and Trent), councils, orthodox theologians, encyclicals, and his own insights as a scholar. They are the best balance I have seen of theology, catechetics, and apologetics usefulness of anything else out there, mainly because of the level of balance. Plus his sample audio clips are about 5-10 minutes long and the pdf outlines are available for free viewing, so you get a good idea of what he will cover. These outlines can also be used as guidelines so you see how he presented the material, and you can use it for your own class.

Try to remember that the best apologetics programs actually teach theology, and the apologetics flows naturally out of it. Apologetics-focused courses tend to fall into a form of proof-texting, and yet the person still may not have a true grasp of the underlying theology. So the problem is, when your response is countered, then what? However, if you understand the source theology, you can create new responses based off of understanding the material.

As a convert, I had tended to focus on apologetics works by Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, then later Robert Sungenis, etc. However, my apologetics really took off when I stopped studying apologetics. Dr. Brant Pitre’s material is so systematic, it’s like going for your degree, and once you learn that material, you can either present it “as is,” or condense it for apologetics specifically. Personally I would not teach apologetics, my opinion on it has changed. I think good, comprehensive theology with a mind to common objections is the ticket. More holistic, less of a negative focus, etc.

Check his stuff out. Phenomenal.

 

[Windfish]

we used the Basic Apologetics series, and began with the first book. It is both a refresher course on Catholicism 101 plus systematic treatment of common questions or objections to the doctrine.

I have wondered about the quality of those books. I think they may be too much at a popular level for me to glean any value from them. What are your thoughts?

You do not say the age level you are addressing. Ours started as a post-confirmation class for jrs & srs in high school and has evolved next to include young adults, now has those of all ages HS on up.

We do not know yet what the approximate age levels will be. To be honest, we are only at the beginning stages of planning.

How is the turn-out for your program? Is it going well?

 

[Windfish]

I would go by topic. Check out this link:

catholic-productions.com/store/audio/pitre/index.html

Woa. I had no idea such professional and scholarly content existed. I mean, Catholic Answers is a wonderful resource, but it is not scholarly enough to arm a Catholic against a learned Protestant or non-Christian.

I have a lot of stuff, by a lot of different people. Dr. Brant Pitre’s sets are the best I have seen. Advanced enough for me to learn new things, easy enough to understand that a complete beginner can get it (my wife is a Cradle Catholic getting back into her faith, she loves them). They are taken from his university courses and are phenomenal. Orthodox, backed by fathers, Catechisms (New one and Trent), councils, orthodox theologians, encyclicals, and his own insights as a scholar. They are the best balance I have seen of theology, catechetics, and apologetics usefulness of anything else out there, mainly because of the level of balance.

Do you have the CD’s, DVD’s, or MP3’s? Will I be missing out on anything if I download the MP3’s? What format do you recommend?

Plus his sample audio clips are about 5-10 minutes long and the pdf outlines are available for free viewing, so you get a good idea of what he will cover. These outlines can also be used as guidelines so you see how he presented the material, and you can use it for your own class.

Brilliant idea!

**Try to remember that the best apologetics programs actually teach theology, and the apologetics flows naturally out of it. **Apologetics-focused courses tend to fall into a form of proof-texting, and yet the person still may not have a true grasp of the underlying theology. So the problem is, when your response is countered, then what? However, if you understand the source theology, you can create new responses based off of understanding the material.

This is what I have always thought. Are you familiar with Archbishop Sheen and Father Robert Barron? I am not comparing myself to them, but they had a way of instructing while at the same time getting the imagination going by weaving in art, politics, and culture into their talks. This is what I want for my apologetics program if all goes well. However, I fear that may not be focused.

Check his stuff out. Phenomenal.

I will. Do you know of any other digital content like this? I love reading, but I love watching movies and hearing talks as well!

btw, you didn’t really say if you taught apologetics. If you did, can you please tell more about it? How did it go? What was the response? How did you structure it?

 

[Church_Militant]

I have wondered about the quality of those books. I think they may be too much at a popular level for me to glean any value from them. What are your thoughts?

We do not know yet what the approximate age levels will be. To be honest, we are only at the beginning stages of planning.

How is the turn-out for your program? Is it going well?

Don’t. I have them all and they are excellent!

That very first one sets up all the rest to come. Tell them to bring pencils and rulers or highlighters. They will learn more than you can imagine.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have wondered about the quality of those books. I think they may be too much at a popular level for me to glean any value from them. What are your thoughts?

?

for you, maybe but OP asked about resources for an audience that is at a beginning level, and this is it, they are also particularly well structured for small group or seminar style classes

the initial books and later books in the series do have a topic organization so would also fit that approach

this class initially began as a post-confirmation course for HS jrs & srs, expanded to attract young college age adults, and now has a steady participation of 10-14 each semester from age 17 to 60

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Woa. I had no idea such professional and scholarly content existed. I mean, Catholic Answers is a wonderful resource, but it is not scholarly enough to arm a Catholic against a learned Protestant or non-Christian.

I know, I felt like I had stumbled on a gold mine. Dr. John Bergsma is another really excellent guy from the same company, he is an assistant professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He has a Doctorate specializing in OT and dead sea scrolls, graduated with high honors. He also had two masters degrees from a Calvinist Seminary (convert) and was a protestant Pastor for four years. His sense of humor rocks and he gives little details you may not get from Pitre, because he came from a protestant background and can give contrasting insights. Dr. Brant Pitre, Dr. Michael Barber, and Dr. John Bergsma all share a blog at www.thesacredpage.com. You can get Dr. Bergsma’s stuff here:

catholic-productions.com/store/audio/bergsma/index.html His stuff comes with outlines as well, and you can listen to audio samples before you buy.

Do you have the CD’s, DVD’s, or MP3’s? Will I be missing out on anything if I download the MP3’s? What format do you recommend?

They are all the same. DVD’s: More expensive, same content, you see Dr. Pitre’s face at the podium. CD’s: Less expensive, same content, have to wait for the shipping. MP3’s: Least expensive, same content, download immediately. I prefer mp3’s

This is what I have always thought. Are you familiar with Archbishop Sheen and Father Robert Barron? I am not comparing myself to them, but they had a way of instructing while at the same time getting the imagination going by weaving in art, politics, and culture into their talks. This is what I want for my apologetics program if all goes well. However, I fear that may not be focused.

Stick with what your gifts are. Archbishop Sheen and others of his ilk had an absolute gift, a way with words, that is best repeated if you have a similar gift. Otherwise, I have found that the best way to give a presentation punch is to let the Church speak for herself as much as possible. Different people have different ways of approaching things, however, and I will cover that below in answer to your last question

I will. Do you know of any other digital content like this? I love reading, but I love watching movies and hearing talks as well!

That link I gave you should keep you busy

btw, you didn’t really say if you taught apologetics. If you did, can you please tell more about it? How did it go? What was the response? How did you structure it?

Not as an official Catechist, no. Our parish is the largest in New Mexico (6,800 registered), so they tend to let the willing and intelligent teach on a smaller level. My response has been positive. I am a chill dude, I like to smile, I want them to have fun. I want them to love it. If you love, it will show, and they’ll love it.

I have a certain gripe with apologetics classes: they are too defensive. You can see it when known converts like Tim Staples came to our parish. Great talk, great guy, but some weirdo (he was unbalanced) from the audience started heckling him the last hour of the talk. I remember clearly that one of the crazy guy’s comments was that Tim was speaking to all Catholics, and yet was delivering pre-emptive arguments, as though he were speaking to protestants. As whacked out as the man in the audience later proved to be, his point was surprisingly lucid.

Another point: For beginners or even intermediate level believers in the faith, one can get confused learning opposing points of view. This is why Dr. Pitre advocates teaching the truth first, and so well, that you can answer objection by relying on your own knowledge of your faith, rather than having to rely quite as much on his. If you want to know the other man’s denominational arguments too, this is fine, but then you have to specialize the audience that you witness to. Some people are all about witnessing to muslims, other’s evangelicals, others reformed, etc. There’s only so much time in one lifetime to be learning heresy. Which leads me to my final solution, which ties in these two previous points:

Teach theology. Theology grounded in love and tradition. This takes care of a couple things. First, it will ensure that you don’t get caught. Sometimes having a clever argument of your own making can seem right at the time, and get you caught by a sharper protestant when he breaks it down. Suddenly, not so clever. The Church however, won’t get caught off guard, and chances are, St Thomas or St Augustine already said it, and better. Second, we love our own faith; we don’t love the protestant faith, or we’d be protestants. Learning the intracacies of protestant response has the tendency for you to look at things in a combative way, since you are learning something you have no desire to learn other than to be able to win the debate. However, charity and grace, patience, the real “winners” of the debate, are often lost in the process.

How do I do it? A bit differently than some. I structure my arguments differently. Allow me to explain…

cont…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

part 2 cont…

Many apologetics courses do the following in this order:

1. Cursory focus on Catholic position.
2. cursory focus on protestant position.
3. Primary focus on possible protestant objections.
4. Primary focus on answering possible objections.

Proof texts from early fathers are used, the Catechism is dumped completely, and ironically, proof-texting from Scripture is often used as well. The bulk of the Catholic response to the objection tends to be the proof-texts themselves.

The problems with the above method are manifold:

1. Not conducive to charity.
2. Does nothing to help the Catholic actually learn his own faith any better (less time is even spent on it).
3. By relying on the proof-texts, there is no underlying argument supporting the proof-texts, and so if the proof-texts fail, the Catholic must end the discussion. To use a shameless analogy (I coach kickboxing), if the street-fighter’s eye-poke fails, he has nothing but a lack of training to fall back on. If the kickboxer’s eye poke fails, he still has the kickboxing. The delivery system is what makes the dirty moves work. In the debate, a sound underlying theological/philosophical argument is what makes the proof-texting work.
4. In this style of apologetic, the Catholic is frequently on the defensive, always being force to explain why he believes. This hardly helps from a psychological standpoint; would the true Church ever be continually backpedaling?
5. A huge problem is that protestants simply don’t understand Catholic terminology, or theological paradigms. They are coming from another country in spiritual terms. The above method frequently lacks a usage of analogy to help the protestant translate our understanding into something he himself can understand. Thus, he will reject you outright, even if your Scriptural argumentation is sound.

By contrast, here is my method, in brief and then indepth point by point, corresponding by number:

1. Primary focus on Catholic position.
2. Cursory focus on common key protestant differences that cause the objections, and why they are untenable.
3. Cursory focus on Catholic objections to protestant position.
4. Cursory focus on protestant objection.
5. I use an analogy as my underlying argument. If Scripture is available that helps, I will use that as my primary basis. For instance, if I am teaching/debating the nature of falling from grace/repentance, I would use the prodigal son as my basis, since a parable is by nature already an analogy that puts things in ways that a protestant would understand. Any supporting proof-texts would be plugged into the over-arcing message of the parable, which serves as the theological baseline, if you will. Make sure that all the proof-texts are interrelated, so that they all shed light on each other and help support the central idea. Early fathers are excellent, but again, I don’t like proof-texting. I would rather take a single epistle/homily with a juicy context that will help give the Catholic a true understanding. Now with this context, give some Catechism and council quotes to really crystallize it for your listeners. This isn’t for a protestant’s benefit, but for the Catholic’s benefit. Now he will truly understand it, and truly be able to explain it.
6. Protestants don’t understand us because they have different underlying theological paradigms. They believe in saving faith, for example; that true faith will automatically bring good works. Why do they assume this? The Catholic must understand that this is a natural extension of their lack of belief in free will, and their belief in irresistable Grace. Irresistable grace and free will combine to form the protestant’s thought that God will save you and you have no say in the matter; so if you have faith, it will automatically produce good works since the graceful good works are also irresistable, and we don’t have the will to refuse to cooperate. Differing views on faith and works abound, but if the Catholic understands the underlying concepts, he will be able to adjust his arguments according to denomination. Rather than trying to hear a protestant’s entire argument about a certain passage, he can ask him his beliefs on key issues like grace, free will, etc, and adjust accordingly.
7. Just for kicks, I would throw out some random objections, from (and here’s the key) different denominational backgrounds. Not all denominations will have the same objections. Throw a few different ones out there, and have your students use the concepts you taught them to alter their answer on their own. This will give them confidence in their skills to be spontaneous.
8. Finally, based off of their firm understanding of their faith and the underlying theological differences, teach them how to ask protestants questions designed to put them on the defensive, based off of inherent contradictions in their theology. This creates a psychological shift. You have shown that your faith is at least reasonable, now you show that his is not by comparison.

Based off of this model, you can see how it takes care of many of the problems with the first method. Now I will give some examples of how I would approach different topics.

cont…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

part 3 cont…

Example one:

Faith Alone

There are many passages to use, but for this particular example, I will use the epistle of James primarily, with minor references to Romans. (If this were theology, and not merely apologetics, I would devote equal play to James and Romans).

My core theological example would be Abraham, since both speak about him.

Read the pertinent passages in Genesis 12, 15, and 22. Now read through pertinent passages in James, particularly chapter 2. Note the fact that James is speaking to believers, note how James talks about failure to do good works as sin. Give a broad overview of the epistle. Read OT passage about Rahab, who James makes reference to.

Now read the portions of Romans that Cite Abraham. The Catholic sees that both Paul and James are looking at Abraham, but for different sides of the same coin. He also sees that Paul and James cite two differing instances as the moment of Abraham’s justification. He also sees the journey of Abraham to the promised land as analogous to the spiritual journey of a man toward salvation.

This coin analogy is helpful. Grace is first, and from grace comes both faith and works.

This is the basic Catholic position.

Why will the protestant not get it? Because of irresistable grace, and lack of free will.

Catholic questions for protestants:

1. You say you need a certain quality of faith to be saved. Yet both faith and works are from God. Are you saying that the quality of faith is dependent on you or on God?
2. Saving faith will necessarily produce good works. James makes clear that poor works or lack of good works are sin too. Yet only God can judge if the works are good enough to equal saving faith, so how do you know you’re saved until you die?
3. When was Abraham saved? Why did he have to do anything if he was saved in ch 15? Why is he justified on three separate occasions?
4. If Abraham is the example used by Paul of faith, then why is it shown as a process?
5. James is talking to believers in his epistle. Why does he warn them that not doing good works is a sin, if the good works will naturally come anyway? They already have faith.

Possible protestant objections:

1. James meant vindicated in Genesis 22. Let them work out an answer. Possible Answer: no he didn’t, because he compared it to Rahab, who was justified, not vindicated. Also, our vindication is not judged by men but by God, and yet God said in Genesis 22, “*Now *I know that you fear me.”
2. We mean saving faith (see above).
3. Paul said we are justified by faith and not by works. Possible answer: Yeah but he used Abraham’s faith as an example, and Abraham’s journey to the promised land was a process punctuated by tests that he repeatedly failed. Would he have made it to the promised land if he had not offered Isaac?

This is an example of how I’d approach this from an apologetics standpoint. Obviously, if I had more time, it’s helpful to cover far more of Romans, Galations, etc. However, for apologetics, Abraham is the focus.

If you have the time, spend way more emphasis on the Catholc position. Teach them everything about faith and works possible, and their ability to represent their faith will be far more effective. The above is more of a bare-bones apologetic outlook, that still keeps my principles in mind.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

For an example of how I would use Church fathers, let’s say you are teaching the Eucharist. Rather than show many, many proof-texts to your students, give them a couple entire epistles of St Ignatius to the Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans. Why? Because instead of just saying that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, St. Ignatius also gives the reason why people deny it. Understanding the epistle’s greater context and his logical reasoning will help the Catholic be able to defend a myriad of possible objections.

In The letter to the Smyrnaeans, St Ignatius argues that Christ really suffered, because he had a real body. Within this context, he discusses the heretics who deny the real resurrection of the body, and in his body providing salvation. Docetism was the first heresy (falling under the larger Gnostic umbrella) to be condemned. St. Ignatius uses the case of a real body on the cross to show us what is meant by the Eucharist when he says “flesh of our Lord.” This context immensely helps the Catholic show that there is no doubt what St Ignatius meant, and is much better for providing a more well-rounded defense than the normal proof-text taken from this epistle.

The letter to the Ephesians is immensely helpful for the following fact alone:

Let not then any one deceive you, as indeed ye are not deceived, inasmuch as ye are wholly devoted to God. For since there is no strife raging among you which might distress you, ye are certainly living in accordance with God’s will. I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus, so renowned throughout the world. They that are carnal cannot do those things which are spiritual, nor they that are spiritual the things which are carnal; even as faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor the unbelief the works of faith. But even those things which ye do according to the flesh are spiritual; for ye do all things in Jesus Christ.

The above passage is immensely helpful for explaining to protestants the difference between carnal and sacramental understanding of John 6.

In short, apologetics programs are good, but honestly, I prefer a comprehensive approach. I prefer context. I prefer learning more about what my faith teaches, rather than the opposition, if that makes sense. In actuality, I would rather learn a course about a broader topic, that touches in smaller various apologetic topics in the process, rather than an apologetics-specific course about “faith and works” like I gave above.

I hope I have helped in giving you some ideas to think about. God Bless.

 

[Deconi]

…a parish community that does not know the Faith very well? It seems to me that, before you defend something, you must know what you are defending. However, that no longer is apologetics. That is catechism.

So you see my dilemma. I and a few others are planning on introducing an apologetics program to our parish, and I am wondering about the best way to structure it.

Someone suggested that we can bypass the whole issue by not organizing the program like a curriculum in a school but by topics. One meeting will be about atheism and another about Protestantism and so on.

What are your ideas?

Every ‘appologia’ course should include and commence with a simple, historic timeline of The CC, including the schism, and WHEN all or most of the main Protestant denominations began.

Then into the canonisation of Holy Writ and the books of Scriptures as originally decided and handed down.

Perhaps, although optional, the lineage of Popes from Peter to Benedict. Include the multiple Popes argumentation in ‘our’ history. Perhaps just an overview and for the students to examine this in detail themselves on their own later if interested.

Multitudes of Catholics do not know these ‘simple’ facts about the lineage of the CC and Scriptures. That is why even after such courses and/or University formal studies, some still ‘sound’ confused about legitimacy and whose views to accept over others!

With all the above disclosed, most of the discussions about passages of Scriptures should progress smoothly without issues of, “…what about what this pastor said, or that professor printed??..” etc etc. This is because a backdrop has been set and at least a yardstick, if you like, for comparison value. They will also FULLY comprehend who the ECFS were and that they were ALL Catholics.

They can still question and examine thereafter throughout life, if they want, but that ***golden thread to the beginning ***has been outlined and where to find it.

Every argument thereafter, as we have all encountered in the world of Christianity and beyond, become a mixture of semantics, polemics, facts or fabrications. But your students now have a measuring stick to source.

They can make up their minds as free as anyone else thereafter.

All the best.