David Anguish
Those who are committed to the defense of the faith, the area of study called apologetics, often find themselves spending as much time defending the defense before Christians as engaging challengers to the faith. Some who question the apologetic task are represented by a typical response cited by William Dyrness: "If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, who are we to seek to defend it? After all, a lion does not need to be defended; it need only be released" (Christian Apologetics in a World Community, 19). Others may not be so direct, but reflect much the same sentiment. In some cases, the reasoning is that, because there are so many things demanding our attention as Christians, we need to get on with those things, not spend (waste?) our time in the technicalities of mounting a defense. Questions concerning the need for such emphasis also grow out of the widely held view that, whatever we do, we must never be controversial.
We readily admit that there is room in the body for varios members to focus on different priorities. We are not as agreeable with the notion that the faith does not need to be defended or with the premise (whether stated or implied) that anyone interested in and committed to developing a reasoned apologetic has somehow compromised the essence of the faith. Rather, we contend that it is to go against both common sense in view of the world we face and - more importantly - the teaching of the New Testament (in both precept and example) to not be apologetic and to criticize those who devote more attention to the task.
We also believe the problem may stem in part from short cuts taken by apologists. The classic text in this regard is 1 Peter 3:15, where Peter demands that his readers be "always ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (NASB). We believe Peter wrote this by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that it is expected in any time and place there are Christians, and that God need only command something once to make it binding. But we also know that in mainly citing only one text on this theme, we can leave the impression that it is the only text. To do so is to deprive our hearers the opportunity to see the pervasive nature of the New Testament's emphasis on defending the faith. So much is this theme stressed - both directly and indirectly - that we can say that to remove the apologetic emphasis from the New Testament writings is to be left with an entirely different set of documents.
Let's first understand that the word translated "defense" (apologia) in 1 Peter 3:15 is used in its various forms no fewer than eighteen times in the New Testament (the verbal form is apologeomai). It is a court room term, and is so used in several places (though these often involve Paul who took advantage of an appearance in court to make a defense for his faith at the same time; see Acts 22:1; 24:10; 25:8,16; 26:1, 2, 24). In other cases, it refers to a defense in general terms, or to a defense against attackers from within the church (see for example 1 Corinthians 9:3). The latter use is of special interest, for it reminds us that, though the term "apologetics" is often used today as a synonym for "Christian Evidences," in truth the study of evidences (which usually involve proofs for God's existence, the inspiration of Scripture and the deity of Jesus) is only part of the apologetic task. Any time we find it necessary to defend any doctrine or practice before those who ask why we believe or do things as we do, we are involved in apologetics.
In truth, when we study the New Testament, we find that the expectation that we will be involved in a defense involves many more texts than 1 Peter 3:15. One important example is found in Paul's epistle to the Philippians. We'll look at a key passage from that writing in part 2.