Yesterday I wrote that few people seem interested in my "sharing of the gospel" because I am answering questions they aren't asking. They are content enough with their own lives. They do not feel the tension about being cut off from God. Culture has sufficiently diverted their attention. Yes, the occasional existentialist seeks to live in the tension, but they are few and far between. So what to do? I believe the answer lies in apologetics, but before you run from your computer screaming, let me say something about what I believe to be genuine apologetics.
In his tape series on apologetics, Os Guinness says apologetics has taken two paths in the Twentieth Century. There is a liberal version and a conservative version. Guinness says the liberal version could be described as, "Dialog, don't debate." Since much of the modernist liberal project has been about uncovering common foundational experiences shared throughout humanity, dialog would lead to a higher understanding of God as we share. The problem is that this emptied the gospel of any distinctive content, so there really was no point in evangelism in the traditional sense of the word.
For the conservative community, the mantra became "Proclaim, don't persuade." The idea was not to engage people in dialog but to proclaim truth. People will either respond to truth or reject it, but there is no point in "throwing your pearls before swine" by seriously conversing with deluded sinful people. An important part of this project has been an almost hyper-commitment to scientific rationalism as conservative apologists have sought to "outreason" the rationalist with their systematic defense of the Bible. The result has often been a grossly over intellectualized pursuit with little or no interest in unique people trying to make their way in the world.
Furthermore, apologetics is often understood as a defense of God and Scripture. Guinness suggests that God needs no defense. Nowhere in Scripture is there a case of God defending his actions or asking anyone else to do so. On the contrary, if anything, God is the prosecuting attorney, challenging human behavior and calling people into account. God unmasks illusions and then challenges us to make wise choices. Apologetics is basically the unmasking of illusions. It is "giving a word back" to the illusions that others place before us.
How does the unmasking of illusions take place? When a person is open and teachable, direct communication often works fine. We see this many times with Jesus' disciples. Questions are a frequent option for those who may be less open to God. Think of Jesus and his interaction with the woman at the well or with the rich young ruler. Parables and storytelling are other avenues. Remember Nathan engaging David in a story and then springing a trap at the end, where David convicts himself. Jesus constantly used parables effectively, much to the aggravation of the religious leaders, who often got the point all too well.
It is pretty easy to tune out someone's rational presentation, but when you are asked questions and enter stories, it bypasses the rational defenses and engages at a much more profound level. Guinness notes that, with hardening hearts, God eventually turns to prophetic warnings and even street theater, as with Jeremiah. Finally, God gives only silence to the truly hardened heart and lets us experience the consequences of our choices.
We who know Jesus have something to offer that goes far beyond rational arguments and theistic proofs, but most people cannot and will not hear what we have to say because of the illusions they live with. We may come across the occasional person of the 2-3% of people open to hearing a straightforward conversation about the gospel, but they will be the rarity. No, the first response must be the compassionate and respectful confrontation of illusions. We start by having a conversation and asking questions. The reality is that most people have not genuinely thought through matters of life, death, purpose, and eternity. The mere probing of these areas with questions and parables often raises tension within the mind. No critical remarks or argumentative "proofs" are needed. When the tension over illusion becomes great enough, there is the opportunity for proclamation and telling of our experience.
However, this also means we must be prepared and willing to probe ourselves on core issues. The beauty of apologetics, seen as genuine conversation, questioning, and storytelling, is that we will also learn much about ourselves. God will reveal things about us through conversations with those who do not believe. We will find illusions lurking around in our minds that must be addressed. In this sense, the interaction with the not-yet-believer becomes a partnership journey instead of a polite conversation or a theological debate.
Apologetics breaks up illusions for both parties. Evangelism turns us to Jesus, hopefully bringing one to faith and the other deeper into faith. We need an evangelism apologetics fusion.
