LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Contending for the Faith Today, Two Views of Apologetics
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
5/2022
Contending for the Faith Today, Two Views of Apologetics
Nearly twenty years ago, a small but significant gathering took place in London under the
chairmanship of Dr. John Stott. A dozen or more nationally known evangelists engaged in
university missions came together to discuss how they saw their work and to consider the
nature of their task. A number of papers were given and discussed by the group. As I recall, I
was one of two students invited to see fair play.
Two papers in particular have stayed in my mind, or at least what to me was their central
thrust. The first was given by David Watson, the second by Professor Donald Mackay. (In human
terms it is tragic for the cause of Christ that such gifted communicators suffered such untimely
deaths. How greatly they are missed and how good it would be if they were able to join in with
this discussion. However, without a high view of the sovereign purposes of God, the gospel task
to which they committed themselves would be a nightmare. God evidently had his reasons.)
The meeting was not recorded, neither to my knowledge was either paper published. I am
therefore dependent on my own fallible memory for these statements. However, they were
etched firmly on my mind at the time and I do not think I have strayed far from the essence of
what they said.
An Evangelist
Let us begin with the key statement of David Watson. He said “A man who is won by an
argument is at the mercy of a better argument.”[3]
The implications take a little thought. It was discussed by the group after his talk and I
personally pressed him on the matter afterwards. To clarify his approach he added that he saw
his task as not to win an argument but to bring people into a personal encounter with God.
The obvious retort I suppose would be to say that a person won by an experience is at the
mercy of a better experience, but I didn't think quickly enough to make the point! However I do
believe that that view of evangelism was crucial for David and sheds a great deal of light on his
ministry.
Firstly, David's evangelistic books and his preaching were liberally illustrated with pithy
quotations from contemporary secularists giving an atmosphere of apologetics, but actually
lacking sustained and carefully reasoned argument. By his own confession, he did not take
argument seriously.
Secondly, his popular and highly influential book I Believe in Evangelism gives no treatment
to the place of argument and apologetics, except to warn readers of the dangers of 'red
herrings'.[4] David was a brilliant communicator and the clarity with which he explained the
gospel was unsurpassed. But he didn't really believe in the value of arguing it.
Thirdly, I think this reveals why in subsequent years he increasingly preferred to engage in
'Celebration Evangelism' where the gospel proclamation took place in the context of an
atmosphere of Christian worship to facilitate the 'encounter'. By so doing he restricted his
ministry to those on the fringes of Christian belief who were prepared to attend such a religious
activity, and avoided those of a more sceptical disposition.
Fourthly, given a sense of the flow and evolution of ideas with time, it explains his interest
latterly in 'Signs and Wonders' evangelism, which also is liable to take place in the context of
Christian worship. By giving a low priority to arguing the truth of the gospel, a vacuum is
created in the area of persuasion. How then does the listener know that what the evangelist is
saying is true? He might understand what he is saying but why should he believe him? The
answer lies in the miracles he is performing. The deeds become the argument. A major problem
then arises if the miracles are not as wonderful as they appear. The 'argument' then turns out
at best to be insubstantial and at worst a flagrant deception, but I have addressed that subject
elsewhere.[5] Suffice it to say, that after extensive enquiries over twenty years – and I have
many contacts around the world through the Christian Medical Fellowship – and in the face of
so many claims of miraculous healing, I have been unable to document a single case that is
directly comparable with the cases described in the Gospel narratives, of complete,
instantaneous recovery of physical diseases which continue to this day to be incurable
conditions (such as congenital blindness or the straightening of a ‘withered hand’). I have to
conclude therefore that, if such miracles are happening today, they must be very rare.[6] This is
not to say that God does not answer our prayers! It does, I believe, throw light on the respect
he gives to the created natural order in the way he answers our prayers. He does not appear to
be tampering with the nature of the world he has set in place.
An Apologist
Let us now look at the very different approach of Donald MacKay. If anyone took over the
mantle of apologist from Arthur Rendle Short, then surely it was Professor MacKay. As far as I
can see, they had a very similar view of their own contributions, and, unlike David Watson, I
suspect that neither of them would readily have seen his role as being an evangelist. Donald
MacKay's key statement from that conference was to my mind that he saw his task as “clearing
away the undergrowth” that hindered people from coming to Christ. By this he meant the
intellectual undergrowth of the doubts, difficulties and misconceptions that stood in their way.
[7] Rendle Short expressed himself in similar terms, “We are not concerned to argue that
natural science, archaeology or any other branch of learning proves the facts of the Christian
religion, but rather that they do not necessarily disprove them.”[8]
I suspect that each would have been happy with the other's statement. They both saw
themselves as apologists in the traditional sense of defending the faith rather than as
evangelists. They generally were happy to leave the proclaiming of the gospel to others.
David Watson and Donald MacKay illustrate, I believe, the two main views as to the place
and importance of argument in Christian preaching held by the majority of Christians today. The
trouble is, and this is my main contention, that neither of them sits squarely with the New
Testament picture that we have been considering.
While the New Testament speaks of the gift of evangelist it nowhere speaks of a different
animal called an 'apologist'. We tend to see the evangelist's role in terms of simple explanation
and leave persuasion, to the extent that we believe in it, to the apologists.
This came out in a recent discussion with an evangelist. He was asked if he ever used role-
play in training Christians to do evangelism. He replied that he had often used it to teach
Christians how they could lead others to put their faith in Christ. It was pointed out to him that
most of the non-Christians around us are not asking that question. They are not wanting to
know how they might become Christians, but did want to know whether, and in what sense,
Christianity was true.
Whom are We Trying to Reach?
It seems that most contemporary evangelists see their role as addressing not only seekers
but those who are already on the brink of the Kingdom and need help in making and
understanding an act of Christian commitment. No wonder they are finding the present time
difficult! The majority of the population of Britain is substantially ignorant about Christ and is
certainly not lying awake at night wondering whether or not to become Christian.
A recent prayer published in the Christian press was dedicated to the Decade of
Evangelism. It prayed that we might take the gospel to those who were seeking after Christ.
Well, quite so, but what of those who have never given the matter a moment's thought,
including those who are totally ignorant about Christ? I doubt if Paul would have stayed so long
in Ephesus, if he had seen his role as merely to counsel enquirers. There really weren't that
many of them!
David Watson excelled in clear gospel explanations. Donald MacKay committed himself to
the task of Christian persuasion. However, the apostle Paul, I would argue, never divided his
work like that. He would no more have reduced evangelism to simple gospel explanation than
he would have merely engaged in persuasion. He was concerned not only that his hearers
should understand him but also that they should be convinced that what he was saying was
true.
After a 'dialogue supper party' that had lasted two hours during which the truth and
implications of the gospel were discussed vigorously, my host thanked me warmly and said that
he would now look for an opportunity to take his guests to hear the gospel 'preached'. What
did he think I had been doing all evening?
The consensus of contemporary Christian thinking on the matter seems to be to espouse a
diminished view of evangelism with a false view of apologetics. A false dichotomy exists
between the two and to my mind the fallacy is exposed by a consideration of the place of
dialogue.
A Diminished View of Evangelism
Most contemporary evangelists never seem to consider that 'dialogue' might be the most
authentic and effective way of sharing the gospel. They are utterly hooked on the idea of
monologue, standing six feet above contradiction. From that position they never hear what
their audience is thinking. If their bland assertions are dismissed within the opening minutes of
their oration, they neither know it nor are in any position to do anything about it! They don't
grapple with their hearers' difficulties or even seem to believe that they should do. They are
protected on their pedestals from the very real difficulties that so many moderns have with the
prospect of embracing Christian belief.
A False View of Apologetics
But if modern evangelists have lost sight of their apologetic task, the apologists have often
under-rated their role. They do this in two ways.
Firstly, there is a tendency to see intellectual difficulties as being the primary reserve of the
intelligentsia. They are the people who have genuine intellectual difficulties, often brought on
by their particular field of studies, to which the apologist must give his attention.
The reality is that any person who has enough intelligence to grasp the simple truths of the
gospel will almost inevitably ask questions. It often comes as a surprise to discover that the
simple man actually asks the same questions as the academic, often using identical words, such
as 'Why does God allow suffering?'. Certainly, they will cope with, and indeed require, answers
at different levels of sophistication. But let there be no doubt that the same issue is being raised
and presents a problem for both.
Seven Basic Questions
In his best-selling book How To Give Away Your Faith, Paul Little – another great Christian
communicator whose life was cut short – itemized the seven most popular questions he had
been asked in his evangelistic work.[9] They were:
1. Is Christ the only way to God?
2. Isn't the Bible full of errors?
3. How can miracles be possible?
4. Isn't Christian experience only psychological?
5. What about those who have never heard the gospel?
6. Why do the innocent suffer?
7. Won't a good moral life get me to heaven?
Of course they may be expressed in many different ways. For instance, the question about
miracles highlights the whole of Donald MacKay country – the interface of science and belief.
The reason that the simple and the sophisticated both ask the same questions has to do
with the nature of the gospel, and they are not so dissimilar from the questions of any
purchaser concerning his purchase. “Is it true what you claim for it? What are the implications
of having it? Do I need it?” All the basic questions ultimately break down to questions of truth
(1-4), implications (5, 6) and relevance (7). They will be asked in measure by anyone considering
the claims of the gospel.
In terms of general subject matter, they cover:
1. The uniqueness of Christianity among the world's religions.
2. The reliability of the historical data about Christ.
3. The relationship of religious truth to the known world of science.
4. The nature of truth and faith.
5. The justice of God.
6. The love of God.
7. The holiness of God.
This brings us to the second way in which the apologist is liable to under-rate his role. It has
to do with his perception of his task. Traditionally, apologetics has been seen as the science of
defending the faith.
Defence or Attack?
The word 'apologia' occurs eight times in the New Testament. Meaning 'defence' it is
mostly used in the sense of a person's defence before his accusers, eg. Paul making his defence
before the mob in Jerusalem in Acts 22:1. Similar uses are found in Acts 25:16, 1 Corinthians
9:3, 2 Corinthians 7:11, and 2 Timothy 4:16.
It is actually only used three times in reference to the gospel itself. In his letter to the
Philippians, Paul twice refers to the defence of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16) and in 1 Peter
3:15 all Christians are exhorted to “Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls
you to account for the hope that is in you.”
It is on these three references that the science of apologetics is based. We are called to
defend the gospel when it is under attack. Unfortunately the very word 'apology' carries a
confusion of meanings, and the resultant impression is of a reluctant science that is only
brought into play in the face of a particularly vigorous attack. In cricketing terms; it is all about
the straight bat, played off the back foot in defence against a fast ball aimed directly at the
stumps. It is sometimes necessary, but it rarely scores runs.
Consider the descriptions of Paul at work, “trying to convince”, “arguing persuasively”,
“proving”, “disputing”, “reasoning”. This is a very different picture. The cricketing Paul is playing
his shots! His weight is on his front foot and he is looking for gaps in the 'covers'.
This more positive and aggressive side is actually implied in Philippians 1:7 where Paul
writes not only of 'apologia' but the defence and confirmation of the gospel.
