The Humanism of Evangelistic Apologetics

Evangelistic Apologetics as it is typically defined today.

In my Introduction, I used the term Evangelistic Apologetics, implying what it might mean but providing no corroboration. The purpose of this chapter therefore is to define two terms:

• Evangelistic Apologist: one who engages in the methodology of Evangelistic Apologetics (this is the easy one!).
  [I refer to it as a methodology rather than a discipline, since Evangelistic Apologetics is anything but disciplined!]
• Evangelistic Apologetics: the methodology of “defending the faith” as it is typically expressed.

Let’s first review what we typically find on the web, then from them create a current, aggregate, working definition. I use this consolidated definition in the remaining chapters.

When I began to notice this topic and its excesses in the late ‘90s, I was disappointed that (usually) conservative, responsible and evangelistic preachers had a tendency to downplay the “direct/immediate” Word of God in their evangelistic activities in favor of the use of something else: an “extra-biblical” (my term) approach. This troubled me greatly, and as a consequence I wrote a relatively short blog article on this topic in March of 1999.

When I decided to revisit that article and greatly expand the research and review of the current state of affairs regarding evangelism and apologetics, I became even more troubled.

In a word, much of what purports to be evangelistic apologetics today is unbiblical, humanistic error that amounts to nothing less than the development and presentation of “another gospel”, one that was accursed long ago by the LORD Himself through the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians.

So, let’s review here how current authors define their "apologetics".

Please note: this is only an aggregation of the definitions put forth by the authors; the bulk of the review and critique of each of these (and more) will be reserved for Part 13.

[Highlights mine in all quoted excerpts below. The right column lists keywords and questionable and/or unbiblical concepts typically found in articles about evangelistic apologetics. Each will be exposed and rebutted in Part 13 of this series.]

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Apologetics and Evangelism

Christian Evangelism: Apologetics and Evangelism

What is ‘Apologetics’?

What is the relationship between Evangelism and Apologetics?

Apologetics : Why your church needs it

Christian Apologetics: The Evangelistic Wave of the Future?

Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?

How Apologetics Serves Evangelism in Our Post Christian Culture

Evangelism and Apologetics

What is Apologetics and Why is it Important?

Christian Apologetics
Norman L. Geisler, 1976

Summary

 While not found in the very short excerpts I quoted above, a common theme found in nearly every article may be described under the broad heading of “pre-evangelism”.

[This term actually is found in some of the articles I’ll deal with in depth in Part 13.]

So, we have the following current, representative terms and concepts to consider when developing a working definition of apologetics:

• the study of biblical manuscripts, Bible manuscript transmission, philosophy, history, science, etc. [generally, “extra-biblical data”)
• the unbeliever "doesn’t have faith" [wow, this is a shocker…]
• the automatic and “natural” equivalence of evangelism and apologetics
• the unrelenting, knee-jerk conflation of “defending the faith” and “defending the hope that is in you”
• “establish”, the “establishment of faith” (used as a gerund), “prior to establishing” [“pre-evangelism”]
• “convincing people” to “conform”; “provoking non-believers to consider Christ”, “persuasion”
• “intellect”, “intellectual”, “intellectual objections”, “intellectual obstacles”, “rationality”, “irrationality”, “rational warrant”, “logical prerequisite”
• “practical”, “opening the door”, “clearing the rubble”, “getting rid of the hurdles”, “morally relativistic”, “revelation is distant and even foreign”, “gospel message being distant”

[You'll find each quoted term in the bulleted list above verbatim in the articles reviewed and biblically critiqued in Part 13.]

While it is true that these are rather clumsy to organize into a cogent definition of evangelistic apologetics, they do share a common foundation: their intellectual, humanistic approach to the lost.

So, let me summarize a working definition here by first positing the aggregated, (typically) implicit premises of modern evangelistic apologetics:

1. The “old-fashioned” gospel has somehow become obsolete and should/must be revised in order to become “relevant” to modern man.
2. All manner of “extra-biblical” data must be employed to first prove the Bible is the Word of God and reliable.
3. Evangelistic apologetics is “pre-evangelism”.
4. The lost person doesn’t already have faith! (This is one of the most useless of the assertions I’ve found in the articles above; of course the lost doesn’t believe! Duh!)
5. The lost person is assumed to be intellectually and morally neutral; if only that neutrality can be swayed, cajoled, subverted, persuaded, manipulated, etc., then that lost person is much more likely to “trust Christ” (whatever that may mean).
6. A lost person remains lost because he/she has not been exposed to an adequate and convincing rationale for “Christianity’s truth claims”.
7. The lost person remains lost because he/she has a variety of intellectual, cultural and other obstacles; if these obstacles can be removed by the skilled use of intellectual and culturally relevant argumentation, then that lost person is much more likely to “trust Christ” (whatever that may mean).
8. Evangelistic apologetics attempts to make apologetics equivalent to evangelism: it may be termed the “new evangelism”, a new methodology touted to be much better suited to modern man by the evangelistic apologist.
9. Evangelistic apologetics emphasizes the method rather than the message (specifically, the gospel).
10. Evangelistic apologetics implicitly downplays the gospel of true repentance. (The concept and necessity of repentance is nearly always omitted in articles on apologetics, and is largely absent from the sites sourcing these articles.)

Based on the summary above (and the details provided in Chapter 13), modern, Evangelistic Apologetics may be defined as;

The humanistic approach to evangelism and the gospel, the “gospel” being a message usually devoid of repentance but overflowing with intellectualism that encourages the self-sufficiency of the lost at the expense of actually calling upon the LORD in faith. It appeals to nearly anything and everything except the true Gospel and depends on the intellect and rationale of the lost to succeed. The true nature of the lost, the electing grace of God, and the unique and powerful work of the Holy Spirit are topics not mentioned.

It essentially downgrades the gospel to the point that it has become another gospel, a gospel incapable of saving the lost, and rather serves as a very effective tool to mislead the lost into false hope. It misunderstands and misrepresents the spiritually dead nature of the lost, and attributes to the lost an intellectual life that the lost does not possess and an understanding of spiritual truths of which the lost is incapable.

Personally, I will not be surprised when The Day shows it to be one of the main reasons that nearly all of that which purports to be Christianity today is actually the humanistic, white-washed, self-centered, self-loving, spiritually-dead tomb that it is.

As I stated in the Introduction, you are strongly encouraged to read this series in the order in which it is presented. This will ensure that you’ll have a biblical foundation by which to assess the spectacular arrogance and biblical error of Evangelistic Apologetics!