Should we all be doing apologetics?

[IanGE]

I had this notion that apologetics can intensify a person’s testimony of Christ. I don’t know if I am having the appropriate mindset about this.

I am rather cool towards the concept of apologetics. Poor old Anslem discussed all views, including opposing ones, but HAD to come up toeing the line. I lean more to evangelisation, tending to use my testimony, my experiences with the Lord. Perhaps this is wrong, evangelisation is spreading, radiating the GOOD NEWS of Jesus, not me! But then I have learnt (the HARD way) to be obedient: “don’t worry about what you will say: I will give you the words.” When I was newly Born Again I was fervently banging out some street evangelisation. My victim snarled: “stick your xxxxxx Jesus up your xxxxx.” I was livid at this blatant blasphemy and was about to take up cudgels when I distinctly heard the voice of my Lord: “Thank you for standing up for Me, Ian, but I can look after Myself!” Accompanying those words was a gentle rebuke: I knew then I wasn’t standing up for Jesus so much as for getting angry at someone criticising MY own beliefs!. I was reminded then to look up 1 Samuel 8 when I got home: Samuel was old but the people did not want his son to be the next prophet. “We want a king” they demanded. Samuel, peeved, goes to the Lord and says, “the people have rejected me…” "No, Samuel, answers the Lord, “they have not rejected you - they have rejected ME!”

 

[Della]

Rekenber;9348628:

I had this notion that apologetics can intensify a person’s testimony of Christ. I don’t know if I am having the appropriate mindset about this.

I am rather cool towards the concept of apologetics. Poor old Anslem discussed all views, including opposing ones, but HAD to come up toeing the line. I lean more to evangelisation, tending to use my testimony, my experiences with the Lord. Perhaps this is wrong, evangelisation is spreading, radiating the GOOD NEWS of Jesus, not me! But then I have learnt (the HARD way) to be obedient: “don’t worry about what you will say: I will give you the words.” When I was newly Born Again I was fervently banging out some street evangelisation. My victim snarled: “stick your xxxxxx Jesus up your xxxxx.” I was livid at this blatant blasphemy and was about to take up cudgels when I distinctly heard the voice of my Lord: “Thank you for standing up for Me, Ian, but I can look after Myself!” Accompanying those words was a gentle rebuke: I knew then I wasn’t standing up for Jesus so much as for getting angry at someone criticising MY own beliefs!. I was reminded then to look up 1 Samuel 8 when I got home: Samuel was old but the people did not want his son to be the next prophet. “We want a king” they demanded. Samuel, peeved, goes to the Lord and says, “the people have rejected me…” "No, Samuel, answers the Lord, “they have not rejected you - they have rejected ME!”

You have given a very good example of what apologetics is not. It’s not shoving the Gospel down people’s throats, as you found out.

Apologetics is answering people’s questions/concerns about the Catholic faith. It’s an arm of evangelization, but it’s not hard core-in your face kind of evangelization. Nor does it appeal to emotions or sensibilities. Rather it is based on reason and evidence–more like a lawyer in a courtroom making a case for a client than a warrior doing battle and taking no prisoners.

In order to do apologetics one needs to first be a person of prayer, then love those he wishes to help and have enough knowledge of Catholic teaching to be useful to those asking their questions or expressing their concerns. Archbp. Fulton Sheen is a good example of an apologist who, unlike Billy Graham, for instance, appealed to people’s common sense and ability to reason rather than to their desires and their fear of hellfire. I’m not condemning Billy Graham’s approach–it has its place, but that’s not apologetics, that’s a form of preaching, which apologists do not do.

 

[Rekenber]

You have given a very good example of what apologetics is not. It’s not shoving the Gospel down people’s throats, as you found out.

Apologetics is answering people’s questions/concerns about the Catholic faith. It’s an arm of evangelization, but it’s not hard core-in your face kind of evangelization. Nor does it appeal to emotions or sensibilities. Rather it is based on reason and evidence–more like a lawyer in a courtroom making a case for a client than a warrior doing battle and taking no prisoners.

In order to do apologetics one needs to first be a person of prayer, then love those he wishes to help and have enough knowledge of Catholic teaching to be useful to those asking their questions or expressing their concerns. Archbp. Fulton Sheen is a good example of an apologist who, unlike Billy Graham, for instance, appealed to people’s common sense and ability to reason rather than to their desires and their fear of hellfire. I’m not condemning Billy Graham’s approach–it has its place, but that’s not apologetics, that’s a form of preaching, which apologists do not do.

I definitely agree.

I realized that there are some who pursue the defense of the Catholic Faith through intense arguments, refuting questions with much fervor that they appear like shouting at computer screens. I had once tried this approach, ending with me leaving the conversation because the other does not put reactions to what I am posting, only more questions.

I now believe that doing this will only cause further rage build-up on both sides. If the other rejects, no need to argue that they accept, more so shove them to their mouths, right?

It’s like offering sugar cubes and creamer alongside the coffee. You can tell them adding a bit of both will give a sweeter, creamier coffee experience, but if they reject it, you should not drop a single cube, nor argue further that they it will be bitter and undrinkable…

 

[ConstantineTG]

And yet Peter says to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” So unless the Church specifically has an opinion on who should do apologetics, which if there is a stance on that I am unaware of I am sorry that I’m ignorant of it, it is up to your interpretation over what it means to be a teacher. And what it means to supply the reason of that hope which is in you.

The problem is many wanna-be apologists do more damage to the faith than help. Rather than enlighten other people, they turn other people away from the faith by their arrogance and most of all, the wrong teachings they themselves propagate. I encountered a wanna-be apologist once who upon learning I was Eastern Catholic who “doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception”, started quoting Bible verses at me and leading of with phrases like, “The Bible answers you…” and “Christ answers you back…”. I don’t know if he’s trying to be one of those TV Evangelist or movie stereotype exorcists, but if I wasn’t Catholic that wouldn’t convince me one bit that there is truth in the Catholic Church. In fact, being Catholic, I start to question why I am in communion with someone like that and would rather be Orthodox just to get away from him.

 

[IanGE]

IanGE;9398886:

You have given a very good example of what apologetics is not. It’s not shoving the Gospel down people’s throats, as you found out.

Apologetics is answering people’s questions/concerns about the Catholic faith. It’s an arm of evangelization, but it’s not hard core-in your face kind of evangelization. Nor does it appeal to emotions or sensibilities. Rather it is based on reason and evidence–more like a lawyer in a courtroom making a case for a client than a warrior doing battle and taking no prisoners.

In order to do apologetics one needs to first be a person of prayer, then love those he wishes to help and have enough knowledge of Catholic teaching to be useful to those asking their questions or expressing their concerns. Archbp. Fulton Sheen is a good example of an apologist who, unlike Billy Graham, for instance, appealed to people’s common sense and ability to reason rather than to their desires and their fear of hellfire. I’m not condemning Billy Graham’s approach–it has its place, but that’s not apologetics, that’s a form of preaching, which apologists do not do.

Thank you, Della, for a lovely reply - your reply in itself is witness to apologetics: how to explain gently, in love, without ruffling feathers. I recall a gaggle of Hari Krishnas on our street once; one of them tried to sell me the Mahabarata or something. I was about to launch my customary bark when the Lord stopped me: “they are searching for Me, Ian, just as you did. You cannot short-circuit their path to me: painful as it is, you must let them stumble in darkness. The path is as important as reaching the goal.”
But then I guess you apologetics must also discern the question: whether the questioner is genuinely searching, being frivolous or preparing to launch an attack.

 

[FinalRepentance]

amen - this is why I joined too!

I remember when I asked about what makes Catholics different to just plain “Christians” my ministers answer was “they worship Mary”.

I was like; “…o rly?..”

 

[asdmilx]

interested in

 

[Della]

Della;9399824:

Thank you, Della, for a lovely reply - your reply in itself is witness to apologetics: how to explain gently, in love, without ruffling feathers. I recall a gaggle of Hari Krishnas on our street once; one of them tried to sell me the Mahabarata or something. I was about to launch my customary bark when the Lord stopped me: “they are searching for Me, Ian, just as you did. You cannot short-circuit their path to me: painful as it is, you must let them stumble in darkness. The path is as important as reaching the goal.”

Thank you for your kind words. I had to learn the hard way too that being confrontational doesn’t help convince anyone of anything.

But then I guess you apologetics must also discern the question: whether the questioner is genuinely searching, being frivolous or preparing to launch an attack.

Yes, and it’s especially hard on a forum because you can’t see the other person but only have his words to go by. The best thing is to always assume goodwill unless/until the other person makes it obvious his intentions aren’t good. If they aren’t it means the person is probably not ready to read any defense of the faith. It’s better to advise him to do some reading on his own and then come back. If he does that, you’ve helped him, if he won’t do that, at least you’ve been civil with him. Some people simply can’t open their hearts and minds to anything other than what they think they know. IOW, it’s complicated–the kind of complications that only God can sort out. It’s why the apologist’s job isn’t to convince, per se, but more to inform.