The apologetics of love, part 1
January 21st, 2006Recently I read Brandon’s blog post entitled ‘My Mormon Friends’, which is about several conversations he has had with Mormon missionaries. At one point in the post he says: “Now I only tell you this story because my heart hurts for Mormons. But not for the reasons that you might think. I hurt for them because of how Christians (or people professing to be such) treat them.” I have actually heard Christians boasting about the arguments they have won and the times they have made Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses look foolish. I shudder to think how many arguments have been won at the cost of driving a person further away from following Jesus Christ. I am certainly not saying that we should avoid discussions about points of disagreement, nor am I saying that “traditional Christian apologetics” (which attempt to show through logical arguments that Christian beliefs are true) have no place. I am saying two things, the first of which I’ll address in this post, with the second to follow later.
Love Is The Point
Thing One: The best argument in the world, without love, is not effective in helping people come to follow Jesus and is not pleasing to Him. I may have the ability to argue in the tongues of men and angels, but if I do not have love, my argument is only useless noise (see 1 Corinthians 13:1). Ephesians 4:11-16 specifically addresses the way in which we speak truth:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (ESV).
We want everyone to grow to maturity in Christ—including people who do not yet know Him—instead of being blown around by human cunning, so we must speak the truth in love. Withholding the truth is unloving, but so is speaking truth harshly or from selfish motivation.
Incompatible Goals
While argument and debate can be effective tools for communication in certain situations, they both tend to be combative/competative—the goal is winning. (When I use the word “argument” here, I mean championing an idea and attempting to convince someone who holds a different idea that their idea is wrong and yours is right.) I recognize that winning might not be the only goal; for instance, a concurrent motivation might be to correct a misperception you believe will harm the other person. Usually, however, winning is a prerequisite for any of those other goals to be met.
There are some situations where argumentation is appropriate and beneficial, such as in the academic and political realms, but I don’t think evangelism is one of those contexts. The dialogue and discussion that happen along the path of helping someone come to follow Jesus are focused on answering questions that arise in the journey. The goal, radically different from winning, is that the person will come to love who we love; first, because we love God, who is worthy to be worshiped by everyone, and second, because God’s love for that person flows to them through us.
Thoughts?
EDIT
Thanks to Aaron for his comment which shows me I should clarify a few things. I’ll post here some of what I posted in response to him:
First, when I talk about the apologetics of love and speaking the truth in love, I am not talking about coming at Christianity from an emotional standpoint and talking only about things that make people feel warm and fuzzy. I think that often critical truth is ignored in that approach; therefore, I don’t think it’s very loving. I mean the full agape sense of the word love, 1 Cor 13 love in all its depth. That’s a far cry from warm fuzzies. That love is strong and sacrificial and often speaks difficult truth.
Second, I am not suggesting that we chuck logical reasoning in evangelism. Rather, I am suggesting that “argument” as I have defined it in the post (see paragraph 1 under “Incompatible Goals”) is not a beneficial method of communication in evangelism. I think that addressing people’s misperceptions about Christianity (it’s irrational, no evidential basis in reality, etc.) is part of “the dialogue and discussion… focused on… answering questions that arise in the journey,” which I mentioned at the end of the post. Some people will probably think I’m splitting hairs to say that “dialogue and discussion” are different from “argumentation,” but again, I think there is a critical difference in: 1) goals and motivations and 2) the verbal and nonverbal communication that occurs during the discussion. One difference (among many, in my opinion) is that “argumentation” as I have defined it says “Here are three reasons why your viewpoint is wrong,” whereas a discipleship-oriented discussion says, “Here are some reasons and some evidence that have helped me to overcome the same objections I hear you voicing – perhaps they will help you, too.”
Some people might say, “That sounds weak! You have the Truth. You’re right and they’re wrong, so tell it like it is.” To which I would respond, “You have the Truth. It doesn’t need to be laced with rhetorical arrogance. Be humble and allow the Spirit to work.”
So I’m all for logical reasoning. I just think it needs to be full of agape, correctly motivated, and employed at the right time.
just a little because its late…
a good argument for tradition apologetics may be exactly what you alluded to in the correction of a “misperception you believe will harm the other person.” The misperception being any one of a number of things: Christianity is irrational, Christianity has no evidential basis in reality, Christianity requires unsubstantiated faith.
If someone believes any of these assertions to be true, then they’re highly unlikely to give any presentation of the gospel, no matter how loving, much serious thought.
Two qualifications: First, I’m assuming that people are so self-aware and evaluate things with a certain degree of rational discernment… that might be an overassumption. and Second, highly emotive people may be only compelled to listen seriously by highly emotional virtues of Christianity (i.e. grace, love, authenticity, etc.) but more rationally minded individuals will find these very same emotional selling points a detracting factor (i.e. “Christianity is ONLY emotive”)
So, all that to say, apologetics put forth in rational argumentation (whether scientific, philosophical, or legal) is necessary for combatting misconceptions that are actively attacking the faith as credible or ratio nal, and may be the only effective means of evangelism for rationally-wired people, who until their misperceptions are dealt with can not see anything but those misperceptions (whatever percentage they might be… lower in pop culture, higher in academia).
What then? Well, perhaps apologetics needs to be done more selectively, by people who are more adequately equipped with not only philosophy and rhetoric, but also compassion and discernment. Unfortunately, apologetics can tend to attract the rationally-wired and socially abrasive.
AB- Thanks for your thoughtful comments. First, I totally agree with your statement that “apologetics put forth in rational argumentation… is necessary.” Because of changes in culture, though, I think it is necessary in fewer cases than it used to be. I’ll flesh that out a little in Part 2 of the post.
I also agree that rational apologetics are far more necessary and useful in the world of academia.
Two things to help clarify where I am coming from:
First, when I talk about the apologetics of love and speaking the truth in love, I am not talking about coming at Christianity from an emotional standpoint and talking only about things that make people feel warm and fuzzy. I think that often critical truth is ignored in that approach; therefore, I don’t think it’s very loving. I mean the full agape sense of the word love, 1 Cor 13 love in all its depth. That’s a far cry from warm fuzzies. That love is strong and sacrificial and often speaks difficult truth.
Second, I think I failed to be clear enough about this in the post: I am not suggesting that we chuck logical reasoning in evangelism. Rather, I am suggesting that “argument” as I have defined it in the post (see paragraph 1 under “Incompatible Goals”) is not a beneficial method of communication in evangelism. I think that addressing people’s misperceptions about Christianity (it’s irrational, no evidential basis in reality, etc.) is part of “the dialogue and discussion… focused on… answering questions that arise in the journey,” which I mentioned at the end of the post. Some people will probably think I’m splitting hairs to say that “dialogue and discussion” are different from “argumentation,” but again, I think there is a critical difference in: 1) goals and motivations and 2) the verbal and nonverbal communication that occurs during the discussion. One difference (among many, in my opinion) is that “argumentation” as I have defined it says “Here are three reasons why your viewpoint is wrong,” whereas a discipleship-oriented discussion says, “Here are some reasons and some evidence that have helped me to overcome the same objections I hear you voicing – perhaps they will help you, too.”
Some people might say, “That sounds weak! You have the Truth. You’re right and they’re wrong, so tell it like it is.” To which I would respond, “You have the Truth. It doesn’t need to be laced with rhetorical arrogance. Be humble and allow the Spirit to work.”
So I’m all for logical reasoning. I just think it needs to be full of agape, correctly motivated, and employed at the right time.
oh.. now I see what you’re getting at. well, geeze, man. why not just say you’re for good apologetics, instead of bad apologetics. ;P
Punk. ;) By the way, I think we met when I was five, so this year is the twentieth anniversary of you being the kind of friend who sharpens the way I think. Should I have sent you chocolates or something?
has it been twenty years? gosh, it feels just like yesterday that you were writing your phone number in my bible with a highlighter. Heh, you were five and had a highlighter in sunday school – what a NERD! ;P
Thought I would throw this in the mix though I think I am late on the uptake. Probably the best book on evangelism I have ever read is by Randy Newman, entitled Questioning Evangelism. I am about half way through. If it even needs stated, this work posits a questioning approach to evangelism. I have read most of what has been posted here and am mostly in agreement, but thing that Newman has some helpful honing to offer. Pardon me of this is mere overlap to anything that has been contributed.
It seems to me, and I believe this is mostly where Newman goes, that dialogue/debate has its place in evangelism. That place is the generation of cognitive dissonance. Questions and appropriate banter can serve to establish the utter disconnect between what a person believers and reality. In fact, questions are often useful in this situation where other methods would utterly fail. Newman asserts that this method of Questioning for the purpose of establishing dissonance is that which is modeled by Jesus himself.
Once the dissonance is established, I think that a person needs to decide on his/her own that beliefs are unjustified/unconsidered/not worth clinging to. It is at this point that many (and I have been guilty of this) will try to convince an unbeliever by flawless Aristotelian logic that they have been wrong their whole lives and they need to swallow their pride and repent. Pride rarely bows to logic. If that decision is not a personal one, the individual has no compelling motivation to seek after a (potentially) life-altering shift in worldview.
My two cents…at the moment…for what it is worth…subject to change.