The Gentle Art of Apologetics by Michelle Arnold

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eric_Hilbert

Guest
FYI:
In making the case for confrontational apologetics, many times we hear that Jesus himself was confrontational. “Jesus overturned tables and drove the moneychangers out of the Temple!” (John 2:13–17). Or, “Jesus called the Pharisees ‘hypocrites’ and ‘whitewashed tombs’ (Matt. 23:27)! He wasn’t very nice, now was he?”
Click to expand...
Rarely is note taken that, in these cases, Jesus did not tell us to go forth and do likewise. He did not say, for example, “Learn from me for I busted up tables, drove the moneychangers out of the Temple, and gave those hypocritical Pharisees a round of dope slaps.” No, the explicit model he gave to us to follow was something very different:
Click to expand...
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matt. 11:29).
Click to expand...
Frankly, one of my personal idiosyncrasies is that I have a white-hot loathing for the spirituality-lite slogan, “What would Jesus do?” Sometimes Jesus did things and said things that only God could do and say because he was, you know, God. And that includes instigating a public ruckus in the Temple and engaging in scalding public denunciations of the leaders of his people (whom he also directed his people to listen to and obey).
Click to expand...
catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-gentle-art-of-apologetics
 
Congratulations to the author on the publication of her book. I hope it will be of help to many.
 
This is great, as I am sometimes a bit too firey and quick. However, are we not also told to bring all people to the truth? How am I supposed to engage those who are travelling along a bad path? Am I supposed to wait? I am confused on this subject.
 
Frankly, one of my personal idiosyncrasies is that I have a white-hot loathing for the spirituality-lite slogan, “What would Jesus do?” Sometimes Jesus did things and said things that only God could do and say because he was, you know, God. And that includes instigating a public ruckus in the Temple and engaging in scalding public denunciations of the leaders of his people (whom he also directed his people to listen to and obey).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I really liked the last part of this. Wish I would have used this on my son the other night when I asked him why all the anti-Catholic bashing instead of trying to figure out what the church actually teaches. He hit me with Jesus did all this to teach us we have to fight others to stand up for and show them our Faith. I’m sure he will say it again, so will have to keep calm and remember this for next time.
 
The blog in question is completely new to me, but just having read what’s been quoted here, I like it 👍. I often feel like the term “apologetics” has been a bit hijacked.
 
Reminds me of the armor of God - four parts defense (breastplate, helmet, shoes, shield) and one part offense (sword).

Also - Luke 22:38 “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

(Note: When I bring this up, I fully realize that I’m a hypocrite)
 
Not to insult, but I grow rather skeptical of someone who claims to be a ‘professional apologist’. That sounds rather like a ‘professional political activist.’
The older I get, the more I believe Catholic clergy make the best “professional” apologists, simply because spiritual matters are what they have given over their life to.
I admit I am not a ‘professional’, and I would never claim to be one.
And as far as I know, the owner of this website does not make that claim either.
 
JustaServant said:
The older I get, the more I believe Catholic clergy make the best “professional” apologists, simply because spiritual matters are what they have given over their life to.
Click to expand...
That’s “so crazy it just might work”. 👍
 
Peter_J said:
Nice, particularly the part about it not being about proof – although I think that would come as a complete surprise to many apologists (including some who call themselves “professional apologists”).
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair the person I am thinking of calls himself a ‘full-time apologist’.
To me (who once was a pastor in a pulpit) it smacks of acting like, but not having to be, an actual priest. I would rather hear from the person who exists in that environment, rather than visits it on occasion as a job.
 
“In making the case for confrontational apologetics, many times we hear that Jesus himself was confrontational”.

Like all good advice, Ms. Arnold’s counsel (against one extreme tendency) needs to be thoughtfully considered, and balanced out with equal advice against the opposite extreme tendency. Since the 1960s Catholics, and others have been saturated in a culture of relativism, where nothing is absolutely true or false, right or wrong. This deeply impacted Catholic education, where textbooks were rewritten to omit any suggestion that one doctrine or religion or morality is “better” than another.

Since (we were told) Catholic doctrine is no truer than any other doctrine, there was no special reason to learn much of it. The kind of proactive lay outreach ministry that flourished, such as Frank Sheed’s Catholic Evidence Guild and hundreds of other programs in Newman Centers and other places, faded away by 1970. Anyone who dared to affirm that prolife might be not just a personal opinion but true and right in itself was labelled confrontational; later, anyone who dared suggest gay marriage might be wrong was labelled a bigot; and of course, confrontational. Those who tried to implement or promote the Catechism were often labelled dogmatic and, yes, confrontational, shunned, isolated.

After a few decades of apologetics suppression, a tiny handful of Catholics have started to speak up, finally, thank God. I am a little troubled that a few of these few are rowdy, undiplomatic, and - to use Ms Arnold’s word, confrontational. I am a little more troubled by the vast majority of Catholics who remain silenced on their faith. Keeping silent in the face of legal abortion promotion is not being “pastoral” or compassionate, or whatever. I wish Ms Arnold would address the Catholic passivity problem. Think of the rowdy, loudy apologetics types as the lesser evil. It is easier to get them to be a little more tactful, and listen more, than to address the much bigger passivity problem. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “confrontational”, because of the times we live in.
 
commenter said:
“In making the case for confrontational apologetics, many times we hear that Jesus himself was confrontational”.

Like all good advice, Ms. Arnold’s counsel (against one extreme tendency) needs to be thoughtfully considered, and balanced out with equal advice against the opposite extreme tendency. Since the 1960s Catholics, and others have been saturated in a culture of relativism, where nothing is absolutely true or false, right or wrong. This deeply impacted Catholic education, where textbooks were rewritten to omit any suggestion that one doctrine or religion or morality is “better” than another.

Since (we were told) Catholic doctrine is no truer than any other doctrine, there was no special reason to learn much of it. The kind of proactive lay outreach ministry that flourished, such as Frank Sheed’s Catholic Evidence Guild and hundreds of other programs in Newman Centers and other places, faded away by 1970. Anyone who dared to affirm that prolife might be not just a personal opinion but true and right in itself was labelled confrontational; later, anyone who dared suggest gay marriage might be wrong was labelled a bigot; and of course, confrontational. Those who tried to implement or promote the Catechism were often labelled dogmatic and, yes, confrontational, shunned, isolated.

After a few decades of apologetics suppression, a tiny handful of Catholics have started to speak up, finally, thank God. I am a little troubled that a few of these few are rowdy, undiplomatic, and - to use Ms Arnold’s word, confrontational. I am a little more troubled by the vast majority of Catholics who remain silenced on their faith. Keeping silent in the face of legal abortion promotion is not being “pastoral” or compassionate, or whatever. I wish Ms Arnold would address the Catholic passivity problem. Think of the rowdy, loudy apologetics types as the lesser evil. It is easier to get them to be a little more tactful, and listen more, than to address the much bigger passivity problem. Sometimes doing the right thing will get you labelled “confrontational”, because of the times we live in.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
commenter said:
“In making the case for confrontational apologetics, many times we hear that Jesus himself was confrontational”.

Like all good advice, Ms. Arnold’s counsel (against one extreme tendency) needs to be thoughtfully considered, and balanced out with equal advice against the opposite extreme tendency. Since the 1960s Catholics, and others have been saturated in a culture of relativism, where nothing is absolutely true or false, right or wrong. This deeply impacted Catholic education, where textbooks were rewritten to omit any suggestion that one doctrine or religion or morality is “better” than another.

Since (we were told) Catholic doctrine is no truer than any other doctrine, there was no special reason to learn much of it. The kind of proactive lay outreach ministry that flourished, such as Frank Sheed’s Catholic Evidence Guild and hundreds of other programs in Newman Centers and other places, faded away by 1970. Anyone who dared to affirm that prolife might be not just a personal opinion but true and right in itself was labelled confrontational; later, anyone who dared suggest gay marriage might be wrong was labelled a bigot; and of course, confrontational. Those who tried to implement or promote the Catechism were often labelled dogmatic and, yes, confrontational, shunned, isolated.

After a few decades of apologetics suppression, a tiny handful of Catholics have started to speak up, finally, thank God. I am a little troubled that a few of these few are rowdy, undiplomatic, and - to use Ms Arnold’s word, confrontational. I am a little more troubled by the vast majority of Catholics who remain silenced on their faith. Keeping silent in the face of legal abortion promotion is not being “pastoral” or compassionate, or whatever. I wish Ms Arnold would address the Catholic passivity problem. Think of the rowdy, loudy apologetics types as the lesser evil.** It is easier to get them to be a little more tactful, and listen more**, than to address the much bigger passivity problem.
Click to expand...
Easy for you maybe!
 
Peter_J said:
Easy for you maybe!
Click to expand...
Ok, you got me there.

I have, on occasion, tried.

I also admit sometimes I post when I am annoyed, always a bad move. Mostly I am referring to activity away from CAF, but within the non-Catholic forum, it can be a problem I admit.
 
commenter said:
Ok, you got me there.

I have, on occasion, tried.

I also admit sometimes I post when I am annoyed, always a bad move. Mostly I am referring to activity away from CAF, but within the non-Catholic forum, it can be a problem I admit.
Click to expand...
I look at CAF as a kind of ‘training ground’ for armchair apologetics. I forces you to give a certain type of answer, in a certain way, that in the real world you might not.
 
JustaServant said:
I look at CAF as a kind of ‘training ground’ for armchair apologetics. I forces you to give a certain type of answer, in a certain way, that in the real world you might not.
Click to expand...
I think CAF provides a lot of info I don’t come across in real life. But as far as a training ground, we all need to keep in mind we are dealing with real people online. They are not just influenced by our facts and arguments, but more so by whether they perceive us as caring about people, especially them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top