Defending the faith in a post-Christian era

Apologetics – the discipline teaching us how to defend our beliefs – is one of many stones adorning the jewel-encrusted crown of Christian faith. The apostle Paul polished this particular stone before the Roman procurators, Felix and Festus (Acts 24 & 25), and Agrippa, the Jewish king (Acts 26), confessing both his doctrine and piety in masterful ways. Much is learned from him, and whatever the era, the gospel is preached and God’s Kingdom is advancing because of the efforts of both evangelism and apologetics, the twin pillars of the kerygma.

Apologetics mandated

Christians today, however, face cultural and intellectual challenges to Christian faith that the apostles Paul and Peter themselves couldn’t have necessarily foreseen. Peter’s words are especially familiar to us: “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, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15).

His mandate calls for as much clear thinking now as it did back in the first century. And it seems as if even more sophisticated measures for reasonably defending our faith are needed at present than were available for use during the New Testament era. Apologetics, then, is not only significant to the faithful in every time and place but biblically warranted as well.

Apologetics on the defensive

Good apologetics doesn’t just happen. A good defensive apologetic must be defined in distinct yet subtle ways. Why? Because of the simultaneous challenges thrown our way by a post-Christian world that constantly questions the truth or rationality of Christian faith.

From within the Christian fold, we’re now at odds with an inclusivist plan of salvation, alluring to many because of its broad salvific appeal. “Open theists” drift closer to heresy and their future expulsion – hopefully! – from the ranks of orthodoxy.

Apologetics on the offensive

A good offensive apologetic, however, attempts to discern the minds and hearts of our neo-pagan neighbors. Rom. 1:18-32 tells us this much - the suppression of truth about God is inexcusable even at the level of general revelation. And once the suppression of truth takes place, it gets exchanged for idolatrous pursuits that God himself deems as an affront to his very nature.

Offensive apologists, then, tell us that heathen and pagan sophisticates alike are obligated to accept the truth claims of Christian faith, generally or specially revealed. Admittedly, this is a difficult enterprise to carry out when compared to defending the faith purely against alternative worldviews. But the apostle Paul’s apologetic method as a whole gives weight to this approach.

Do we assume God or argue for Him?

Do we assume the truth of Christianity or argue for it instead? Well, both. If we argue for its truthfulness, it follows that we’re assuming it to be true. But today’s bewildering array of worldviews, cults, -isms, and -ologies lends new dimensions to the apologetic task, involving details that go beyond the acknowledged importance of assumptions. Putting our apologia into service for the sake of the gospel’s clear proclamation means that it’s more crucial than ever to struggle against the siren songs of the post-Christian age.

The bottom line

So what’s the evangelist/ apologist to do? Preach the gospel and provide answers whenever asked. But can defensive and offensive apologetics, can evidences and assumptions be brought together in some way? Can some working prescription make sense of it all? The answer is a resounding yes! And here it is: Evidence is the necessary but not the sufficient cause for belief.

If the external evidence for Christian faith were in fact faulty, skeptics could legitimately build a case for justifying their unbelief. But it’s not faulty. The evidences are simply there for the taking, never going away. God doesn’t leave himself without witness. Yet as necessary and rational as they are, the evidences themselves never actually compel belief; rather, God alone compels such belief. Only the Spirit himself is sufficient to oblige belief unto salvation.