Many people today are interested in Christian apologetics. The title apologist has been given to several figures in history and in modern times. One often considers C.S. Lewis as the quintessential Christian apologist. One might even consider early Christians such as Justin Martyr or Origen as well as the medieval St. Thomas Aquinas. From Ravi Zacharius to Greg Koukl to Lee Strobel to Walter Martin, there are a variety of diverse individuals given the appellation of Christian apologist and each approaches their task from a different perspective.
The classic biblical verse from which the calling and duty of the apologist is based on is 1 Peter 3:15-16.
“Always be ready to make your defense [apologia] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (NSRV).
Apologia can be read as defense but also simply as an answer.
“Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).
It is the reason for hope that should be the substance of the message. Unfortunately, it is often verse 16 “yet do it with gentleness and reverence” or “respect” which is forgotten.
As I’ve reflected on past posts, I feel there could be some who have misunderstood my views on apologetics. Initially, rather than set forth my views in an essay form, I chose a dialogue format in What is ‘Bad Apologetics’? to illustrate the drawbacks that I’ve seen by a popular notion of apologetics as it is often practiced. This isn’t to say that the enterprise of apologetics in all its diversity doesn’t have a place. Rather, it is to say that if one is determined to engage in apologetics, one should do so effectively and responsibly, otherwise the results could be quite unfortunate.
As I’ve experienced and read various authors and have become familiar with different kinds of apologists and apologetics, I’ve come to see two categories: the Apologist as Warrior and the Apologist as Healer.
Apologist as Warrior
This is probably the kind of apologetics that most people are familiar with. The young Christian aspires to be like the famous apologists who know all the answers and have studied philosophy and ancient languages and is able to counter any argument that comes his way. “I’ve never been defeated,” I heard one budding apologist exclaim. This kind of apologist doesn’t simply “stand ready” to give the “reason of the hope” of Christ “when asked” but even does so when not asked. He opts not to present the ”reason of hope within,” but rather his message is why other religions have no hope, i.e. “let me tell you why you’re hopeless.”
He goes on the offense and seeks to show the superiority of Christianity in comparison to all other religions. Moreover, he seeks to refute any religion in competition with Christianity. Because of this, many Latter-day Saints are more familiar with the Christian apologists who specialize in countering the new religious movements than those apologists who defend Christianity in general, against secularism and atheism. In my experience, most of the apologetics that occurs on blogs, message boards and chat rooms are of this type.
Apologist as Healer
However, there is a second category of apologist: the Apologist as Healer. She doesn’t seek to attack another faith but to assist those in the faith to live it better and to assist those who have doubts and concerns, or perhaps those who are unable to articulate the beauty that lies within. The apologist as healer doesn’t need to tear down another faith in order to present her own. Rather she seeks to present the hope that is within her.
Again, I think of C.S. Lewis who has been able to explain Christianity in such a way that his writings resonate with Latter-day Saints, Catholics and Evangelicals. Truly, a remarkable feat. His appeal is that he offers the reason of the hope that is within him.
Anglican philosopher and close friend of Lewis, Austin Farrer, illustrates well the activity of the apologist as healer.
It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. So the apologist who does nothing but defend may play a useful, though preparatory, part. Jocelyn Gibb, ed., “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis. (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965, p. 26.)
Notice, the goal is to “prevent the destruction of belief” among one’s faith tradition, not to go on the attack to destroy belief of others under the premise that argument will create conviction or that rational argument will be the genesis of belief, or simply believing that destruction of belief is the raison d’être of the apologist.
Apologetics is an in-house project that affects those in one’s in-group rather than one’s out-group. This goes for the warrior and the healer. Apologetic “debates” serve as spectacle to show believers (one’s in-group) just how solid and strong their position is compared to the enemy’s. But the goal isn’t to reclaim the enemy, but to refute him and make an example of him for all to see.
Years ago when I frequented chat rooms I noticed that people didn’t want to argue by instant messaging. They only wanted to argue in the chat room. Without an audience, the argument seemed pointless. No one wants to win an argument in solitude, but only to win it in front of others. It becomes a kind of “theological bloodsport” with ”gladiator style apologetics.” Such apologetics may not be apologetics at all. They don’t give the reason for the “hope that is within them” and they certainly do not do it with “gentleness and respect.” It becomes an empty ritual of thrust parry, thrust parry, over and over again. My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu.
We need more Apologist as Healers, those who develop the capacity and truly can offer the reason of the hope that is within them.
Too true.
Thank you for this post. Oh how I wish it can be taken to heart by all who profess to be Christian.
C.S. Lewis said a lot of things in general about the definition of “Christian”. His is a very simple and orthodox faith that would not on its own draw in LDS members. Lewis’s Mere Christianity was quoted in an LDS publication some time back where it appeared that he was opening the door to anyone who called themselves Christian, regardless of where they stood on essentials of the faith. The quote was highly edited and when seen in context said almost the opposite. His fantasy works do appeal to everyone, but his theology would exclude LDS traditions as compatible with what he would define as Christian. As far as I know, he never attacked any version of the faith directly and was truly gentle in his apologetics, but he was not wishy-washy either. Right now it escapes me what the LDS publication was, and my copy of Mere Christianity is not handy (that may be where I have notes on it) so I can’t post it here right now.
On a more general note, yes, there are different approaches to apologetics but I don’t see any one as better than another. It all depends on who is involved and what the goal of the dialogue is. I have also had a lot of experience in chat rooms and when in a chat room, I prefer that a dialogue that starts there should continue there as an open discussion. I don’t mind moving to IMs if the room is too hectic or that there is something private or of no interest to more than whoever it is that wants to IM. It has nothing to do with wanting to “win” in front of others for me. Should it be asked that someone initiates IMs so as not to lose in front of others? Could be a case for that. However, I just think open dialogue where thoughts are exchanged respectfully is the best way to go. If only there were enough mature people in the chat rooms to honor that.
Russ, I appreciate the comment. The plain fact of the matter is that LDS are drawn to the writings of C.S. Lewis. This can be seen from the writings of Latter-day Saints themselves. For example, in a talk titled “The Pathway of Discipleship” Neal A. Maxwell quoted Lewis:
Now, whether you think they should be drawn to the writings of C.S. Lewis or not is another matter, and I’m not exactly sure what would motivate you to make such a statement that nothing C.S Lewis has written in and of itself should appeal to LDS. That would be like a Protestant arguing that a Catholic shouldn’t be drawn to C.S. Lewis because Lewis wasn’t Catholic or that a Protestant shouldn’t be drawn to C.S. Lewis because Lewis was Anglican and not Protestant. That a very ugly sentiment and an example of apologetics at its worst.
The more of C. S. Lewis I read (and lately, that’s been quite a bit), the more I realize how utterly and completely wrong Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelicals are when they try to enlist/revise Lewis as an apologist for their specific belief system.
Read Surprised by Joy, read Till We Have Faces, read Mere Christianity and Narnia, but read them carefully. Not only was Lewis most definitely not towing a party line, he was not even talking simplified, general basic Christianity. He came to theism and to Christianity in a fairly unique way, intellectually, and the Christianity he professed reflected his somewhat quirky (and brilliant) intellectual path.
He’s not writing almost-Mormonism, he’s not writing almost-Catholicism, and he’s certainly not writing Evangelicalism of any stripe. He’s doing something fairly unique, and what he’s actually saying gets twisted and distorted something fierce. I think the reason he felt at home in Anglicanism (aside from the fact that he was raised Ulster Protestant) was the Latitudinarianism that admitted a pretty wide variety of belief.
I think a lot of people do their darndest to project their own beliefs on Lewis, and miss some fantastic stuff.
Thanks for the comment Kullervo. It may be your experience that Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals are trying to enlist “Lewis as an apologist for their specific belief system.” That hasn’t been my experience. My experience has been that there is genuine appeal for the writings of Lewis and that Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics, and others, relish the “fantastic stuff” that Lewis writes, even though they know Lewis was not part of their particular flavor or branch of Christianity.
For example, the Christianity Today: A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction article titled “C.S. Lewis Superstar” the author writes:
The book by Catholic author Joseph Pierce titled “C.S. Lewis and the Roman Catholic Church” seeks to tackle the question of why C.S. Lewis wasn’t a Roman Catholic despite the appeal that many Catholics find in his writings. It seems clear to me that C.S. Lewis’s writings appeal to Evangelicals and Catholics not because they necessarily seek to enlist him as an apologist for their faith but because the writings of Lewis actually resonate with them.
The relationship between C.S. Lewis and Mormonism is more complicated. It is one thing to claim that Protestants and Evangelicals love Lewis. It is quite another to claim that writings of C.S. Lewis also appeal to Mormons. Much of this, understandably although unfortunately, is playing out (or has played out and no doubt will be repeated ad nauseum, and I seriously hate to rehash what has been hashed out before) in the arena of counter-cult apologetics, as Russ’s comment above illustrates. This ultimately has less to do with C.S. Lewis and more to do with the dynamics of the counter-cult movement. In fact, to some degree even among some Catholic and Evangelicals there is a sense in which no one wants the other to use Lewis to support their beliefs. Lewis becomes a kind of child of divorced parents in a tug of war. No, you can’t have Lewis, he’s mine! No, he’s mine! There is a sense in which Evangelicals are irritated by Mormon affinity for Lewis in the sense of “No, you can’t like Lewis! Heck, you aren’t even Christian and he isn’t even talking to you, only us Christians.” In that sense, I agree with you that to focus only on apologetic interests can blind us to “fantastic stuff” not only in Lewis but in the writings of others as well.
Maybe there are people out there who are “twisting” Lewis. Perhaps its possible that no one understands Lewis and that they have to ignore Lewis in order to like his writings. However, my point is that most Christian apologists are only appreciated within their own faith tradition because they only speak to their own faith tradition. Lewis on the other hand, is strikingly admired across Christian traditions, not because they misunderstand him or find his material only useful for apologetic exploits, but rather because there is a genuine connection with his work.
No way, Russ. Lewis’s faith was neither simple nor necessarily orthodox. Mere Christianity comes across that way because it is written to deliberately be extremely simple and (at least, from Lewis’s perspective) extremely orthodox. Look beyond Mere Christianity to some of Lewis’s more complex and personal works, and you’ll see a huge difference.
I had a fairly long reply to aquinas’s comments about what I wrote trying to clarify what I meant, as it seems I was not understood at all. I have no idea why it didn’t get posted, and it’s just now, a few months later, that I notice it didn’t post. I’m not going to try and redo it, but I will say the rebuff was uncalled for. As I recall, I was pointing out that Lewis the appologist who wrote Mere Christianity (which I happen to enjoy) is fairly orthodox in his approach and his stand on what is and isn’t Christian would leave the LDS church outside his boundaries because of specific beliefs unique to the LDS Church.
However, one of the best places in his writings of fantasy where I do think there is something we can all agree on is a point in the Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle…..there a man who is technically following a horrible false god, who is saved because his concept of that god is of a loving god and not like how others who follow that god think of him. What Lewis puts into this fantasy is that God truly sees the heart and that can override doctrine or practice.
What I wrote here is not as thought out as what I tried to write after the first post, but it seems that I did a very poor job of putting my thoughts down the first time and needed to try and clear it up.
Russ, I appreciate your reply. I checked my comments and I never received your long reply on this end. You wrote, “His is a very simple and orthodox faith that would not on its own draw in LDS members.” Whether the writings of C.S. Lewis would or would not draw in LDS members is a hypothetical question that you might pose before C.S. Lewis published any of his writings.
However, purely on empirical grounds, Latter-day Saint readers are drawn to the writings of C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis has been quoted in LDS literature by Richard L. Evans, Sterling W. Sill, Jeffrey R. Holland, Marvin J. Ashton, James E. Faust, Dallin H. Oaks, Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, Ezra Taft Benson, Robert L. Millet, Bruce C. Hafen, Stephen E. Robinson, and most prolifically by Neal A. Maxwell.
Secondly, full theological compatibility between Anglicanism and Mormonism is not a prerequisite for an LDS reader’s appreciation of the writings of C.S. Lewis, any more than full theological compatibility between Anglicanism and Evangelicalism or Catholicism is a requirement for Evangelicals and Catholics. Latter-day Saints may not, and certainly do not, accept every single theological proposition advanced by C.S. Lewis. Certainly some beliefs of Lewis are incompatible with the teachings of Joseph Smith. Clearly, C.S. Lewis holds to the traditional distinction between Creator and creature. However, there are beliefs that LDS and Lewis share and many passages written by Lewis that resonate with LDS readers. They resonate for a reason. You may think they shouldn’t resonate, but that is a completely different issue. Here are a few well-known Lewis passages:
I think most Latter-day Saints get the fact that no matter what, there will always be someone to come along and tell them that Lewis didn’t mean what Latter-day Saints think he meant. That objection is duly noted. Now, is it possible to move beyond those kinds of comments?