LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Definition and Worldviews & Spirituality 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
3/2022
This paper – a contribution to the field of metapologetics [1] – advances a holistic definition
of apologetics [2] as:
The art of persuasively advocating Christian spirituality across spiritualities, through the
responsible use of classical rhetoric, as being objectively true, beautiful and good.
After contrasting this definition of apologetics with some standard definitions and
commenting upon the evolving role of worldview analysis within apologetics, I will unpack all
three clauses of the above definition before arguing that it captures Paul’s approach to
apologetics as exemplified by his Athenian mission.
On Standard Definitions of Apologetics
A key advantage of my definition of apologetics is that it avoids narrow intellectualism
without downplaying the importance of the intellect. The discipline of Christian apologetics is
commonly defined in purely academic [3] terms. For example:
R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsey state that ‘Apologetics is the reasoned
defence of the Christian religion.’[4]
C. Stephen Evans defines apologetics as ‘The rational defence of Christian faith.’[5]
Winfried Corduan says that ‘The defence of the truth of Christianity is called
apologetics.’[6]
James E. Taylor writes that ‘Christian apologists defend the truth of Christian claims …
they try to show that it is reasonable to believe what Christians believe.’[7]
Francis J. Beckwith explains that ‘responding to … challenges and offering reasons for
one’s faith is called apologetics.’[8]
John Frame describes apologetics as a matter of three inter-related elements: ‘(1) proof,
rational confirmation for faith; (2) defence, replies to criticisms; and (3) offense, bringing
criticisms against non-Christian ideas.’[9]
William Lane Craig writes that: ‘Apologetics (from the Greek apologia: defence) is that
branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide rational justification for the truth claims of
the Christian faith.’[10]
Norman L. Geisler and Patrick Zukeran likewise note that ‘Apologetics comes from the
Greek word apologia, which means a defence’ and write of the apologist as one who ‘uses
reason and evidence to present a rational defence of the Christian faith.’[11]
H. Wayne House and Dennis W. Jowers affirm that ‘Apologetics … is a defence (apologia)
of one’s position or worldview as a means of establishing its validity and integrity. It is an
attempt to establish the truth of the matter and to present a convincing argument in support of
it.’[12]
This isn’t to say that everyone who gives an academic definition of apologetics necessarily
does apologetics in a merely academic way (for example, Craig uses existential concerns in his
apologetic[13]), or that they don’t qualify their definitions (e.g. Geisler and Zukeran subtitle
their book ‘A Caring Approach to Dealing with Doubters’, etc[14]). However, such disjunctions
between apologetic definition and practice underline the need to revisit the definition.
While the academic definitions of apologetics given by Sproul et al are technically correct,
they nevertheless short-change our understanding (and thereby our practice) of apologetics. To
define an apologist as a person who ‘uses reason and evidence to present a rational defence of
the Christian faith’ is rather like defining a chef as ‘someone who prepares edible ingredients to
be eaten’. Neither definition is exactly wrong, but they are both thin and misleading. They are,
we might say, necessary but insufficient descriptions. How the chef prepares her ingredients is
at least as important as the mere fact that she prepares them. Likewise, Gregory P. Koukl
reminds us that ‘It’s not enough for followers of Christ to have accurately informed minds. They
also need an artful method. They need to combine their knowledge with wisdom and
diplomacy.’[15]
It seems to me that in any genuine incidence of apologetics what is happening is an
attempt to persuade someone, not merely to change their mind, but to exchange their non-
Christian ‘way of life’ for a Christian ‘way of life’ (cf. Acts 26:28).[16] In other words, apologetics
is an attempt to persuade people to exchange their non-Christian spirituality for a Christ-centred
spirituality. Hence, with Francis A. Schaeffer:
I am only interested in an apologetic that leads in two directions, and the one is to lead
people to Christ, as Saviour, and the other is that after they are Christians, for them to
realize the lordship of Christ in the whole of life… if Christianity is truth, it ought to touch on
the whole of life… Christianity must never be reduced merely to an intellectual system…
After all, if God is there, it isn’t just an answer to an intellectual question… we’re called
upon to adore him, to be in relationship to him, and, incidentally, to obey him.[17]
Christianity includes but isn’t limited to a set of beliefs.[18] Likewise, persuasion includes
but isn’t limited to intellectual persuasion. As Douglas Groothuis observes: ‘Christianity makes
claims on the entire personality; accepting it as true is not a matter of mere intellectual assent,
but of embarking on a new venture in life.’[19] Groothuis therefore defines apologetics in more
holistic terms as ‘defending and advocating Christian theism’,[20] adding that ‘Christ-like
apologetics labors to communicate the truth in love and with wisdom’.[21] The definition of
apologetics I am offering extends this holistic shift in emphasis to its logical conclusion.
Worldviews & Spirituality
Another benefit of the definition of apologetics I am offering is that it incorporates some
sound advice, drawn here by Doug Powell from Acts 17:22-34:
Paul found common ground in the fact that his audience believed in some form of
religion. The problem, according to Paul, was that they believed in something false, not that
they believed in nothing. They had a religious worldview, but it was full of holes. Knowing
the egregious flaws in their religious system, he made a case for Christianity…[22]
Powell draws attention to the scriptural wisdom of building dialogue upon common ground
and to the underlying importance to apologetics of worldview analysis – that is, of a capacity to
categorise, understand and critically engage with people’s differing sets of answers to the basic
philosophical questions.
Schaeffer likewise argued that a critique of incoherence and falsehood in non-Christian
worldviews, on the basis of shared epistemological standards, is a methodologically wise pre-
amble to offering the Christian worldview as a plausible alternative. He memorably called this
process ‘taking the roof off’:
Every person is somewhere along the line between the real world and the logical
conclusion of his or her non-Christian presuppositions. Every person has the pull of two
consistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of his system…
To have to choose between one consistency or the other is a real damnation for man. The
more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the
further he is from the real world; and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical
he is to his presuppositions… the first consideration in our apologetics for modern man … is
to find the place where his tension exists… when we have discovered, as well as we can, a
person’s point of tension, the next step is to push him towards the logical conclusion of his
presuppositions… every man has built a roof over his head to shield himself at the point of
tension. At the point of tension the person is not in a place of consistency in his system, and
the roof is built as a protection against the blows of the real world, both internal and
external… the Christian, lovingly, must remove the shelter and allow the truth of the
external world and of what man is, to beat upon him. When the roof is off, each man must
stand naked and wounded before the truth of what is. The truth that we let in first is not a
dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures, but the truth of the external world and
the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show
him the real nature of his lostness and the answer to it.[23]
I agree that apologists should try to use common ground to lead the non-Christian into a
discovery of cognitive dissonance [24] inherent within their non-Christian worldview, revealing
a felt need to which the Christian worldview can be addressed as a to-be-desired intellectual
and existential resolution. However, to follow this advice one must be able to compare and
contrast the Christian worldview with relevant non-Christian worldviews (so that one can build
upon commonalities whilst critiquing differences). Hence Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M.
Bowman Jr. begin their textbook on apologetics by framing the issue at hand in terms of
worldviews:
How to relate the Christian worldview to a non-Christian world has been the dilemma
of Christian spokespersons since the apostle Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean
philosophers in Athens.[25]
To this end, apologists have proposed various definitions of ‘worldview’ (as well as various
classificatory systems through which to understand how different worldviews provide mutually
incompatible perspectives on reality[26]). Interestingly, the trajectory of these discussions has
been to move from a narrowly academic definition of a ‘worldview’ to more holistic
descriptions. This trend is exemplified by the fact that while the first edition of James W. Sire’s
classic text The Universe Next Door (IVP, 1976) defined a worldview as simply ‘a set of
presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold
(consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our
world', the 5th edition thereof (2009) defined a worldview as:
a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a
story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or
entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently)
about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live
and move and have our being.[27]
Powell’s advice about worldview apologetics, helpful and scripturally based as it is,
nevertheless reflects the one-dimensional, academic approach seen in many definitions of
apologetics. D.A. Carson is right to observe that the challenge of thinking about apologetics in
worldview terms ‘is not primarily to think in philosophical categories, but to make it clear that
closing with Jesus has content … and is all-embracing (it affects conduct, relationships, values,
priorities).’[28]
Boa and Bowman comment:
Classical apologists seek to show that the Christian worldview is rational or reasonable
and therefore worthy of belief… This focus is widely perceived as a weakness in the classical
approach because it overlooks the personal nonrational factors that contribute to a
person’s knowledge and beliefs… Commitment to ultimate philosophical perspectives is not
merely intellectual; it is also influenced by emotional and volitional factors.[29]
Much of the valuable work done in recent decades by Christian scholars on the issue of
worldviews[30] likewise tends to focus attention on the academic dimension of apologetics, at
least where ‘worldview’ is understood as something like ‘a set of beliefs about the most
important issues in life.’[31] For although Christianity is a worldview in this sense, there’s more
to Christianity than that. As Robert L. Reymond affirms:
Christian apologetics should not only be concerned with correct epistemological
method but at bottom should also be evangelistic and kērygmatic… the Christian apologist
will … seek to present persuasively the Christian faith in all of its wholeness and beauty…
[32]
The gospel addresses itself to the whole person, and Christian apologetics must therefore
be grounded in and addressed to a Christian understanding of human nature. On this basis we
should recognize with Alister McGrath how ‘apologetics must ensure that the relevance of the
Christian gospel to the human heart, as well as the human mind, is fully explained and
explored.’[33] McGrath consequently presents a more holistic definition of apologetics than
Sproul et al, explaining that apologetics is:
The field of Christian thought that focuses on the justification of the core themes of the
Christian faith and its effective communication… Apologetics celebrates and proclaims the
intellectual solidity, the imaginative richness, and the spiritual depth of the gospel in ways
that can connect with our culture.[34]
Nor should we leave out the relevance of the gospel to human action in the world. Let’s be
clear: I am not proposing that apologetics should advocate Christianity as appealing to the
desires of the heart and / or the requirements of practical living rather than appealing to
rationality. C.S. Lewis famously observed that ‘One of the great difficulties [in apologetics] is to
keep before the audience’s mind the question of Truth. They always think you are
recommending Christianity not because it is true but because it is good.’[35] Nevertheless, in
apologetics we should appeal to the whole person (heart, hands and mind). I therefore
wholeheartedly endorse Gregory E. Ganssle’s comment that in apologetics ‘Our hope is to bring
facets of the richness of the gospel to bear on the lives, beliefs, values, and identities of lost
human beings.’[36]
On these grounds I have much sympathy with Sire’s move to a more holistic definition of
‘worldview’. Indeed, Sire’s evolving definition is approaching what I would consider a generic
definition of ‘spirituality’, i.e. ‘worldview beliefs married to attitudes that lead to actions’. This
tripartite understanding of ‘spirituality’ (upon which my definition of apologetics is built) retains
the precision of Sire’s academic definition of ‘worldview’ without rejecting the holistic insights
embraced by Sire’s more recent (and unwieldy) formulation. Thus, although I concur with the
advice about worldviews given by Powell – and those who offer essentially the same advice
about their importance [37] (often with reference to the same scriptural source [38]) – I believe
this wisdom can be fruitfully subsumed within a holistic understanding of apologetics (one that
focuses attention upon the ‘all-embracing’ nature of the gospel) as:
The art of persuasively advocating Christian spirituality across spiritualities, through the
responsible use of classical rhetoric, as being objectively true, beautiful and good.
As a foundational term in this definition, ‘spirituality’ bears a closer look.
Defining ‘Spirituality’
While some people assume that spirituality should involve God, plenty of people (e.g.
Buddhists and Secular Humanists) engage in spirituality without any reference to God.[39]
Alexander W. Astin et al state that ‘Spirituality points to our inner, subjective life, as contrasted
with the objective domain of observable behaviour…’[40] However, many people associate
‘spirituality’ with certain spiritual practices (e.g. prayer, yoga or recycling). Of course, this
implies a distinction between spiritual and non-spiritual activities that Christian spirituality, for
one, rejects (cf. Romans 1:12; Colossians 1:10 & 3:23). Clearly, a general definition of spirituality
must avoid prescriptions about the specific content of spirituality (whether ‘internal’ or
‘external’); which means that we must focus instead upon the general structure of spirituality. I
therefore propose the following general definition of spirituality:
Spirituality concerns how humans relate to reality – to themselves, to each other, to the
world around them and (most importantly) to ultimate reality – via their worldview beliefs,
concomitant attitudes and subsequent behaviour.
In other words, spirituality is about how one relates to reality through the combination of
one’s head, heart and hands.
The entirely general definition of spirituality given above is consistent with the Biblical
understanding of how humans learn, found in Deuteronomy 31:10-12:
Then Moses commanded them: ‘At the end of every seven years … when all Israel comes to
appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before
them in their hearing. Assemble the people – men, women and children, and the foreigners
residing in your towns – so they can listen and learn to fear [i.e. respect] the LORD your God and
follow carefully all the words of this law.’ (my emphasis)[41]
Educationalist Perry G. Downs comments:
Moses states that he wanted the people to learn to fear the Lord. The word translated
‘learn’ (lamath) is the most common Hebrew word for learning. It implies a subjective
assimilation of the truth being learned, an integration of the truth into life. Learning was to be
demonstrated in two ways, by a change of attitude and by a change in action.[42]
When listening to the word of the Lord is combined with a positive attitude of reverent
‘fear’ of the Lord the people will follow the law. Likewise, apologetics isn’t just about getting
people to change their minds, but their fundamental spiritual allegiance; and spirituality is a
matter of worldview beliefs married to attitudes that sustain actions.[43]
A person’s actions are ‘spiritual’ insofar as they are an organic outworking of their
beliefsabout reality and their attitudes (whether positive or negative) towards what they
believe about reality. Different spiritualities embody different answers to the question of how
people can best relate to reality (or how they ought to relate to reality). Spiritualities make
distinctive and mutually contradictory knowledge claims (even those that incoherently
repudiate the concepts of truth and knowledge).[44] There is thus an integral relationship
between spirituality and worldview: the answers we give to fundamental worldview questions
partially determine the nature of our spirituality. Every mature, properly functioning human
being has a worldview:
By God’s design, people as thinking, feeling, and willing beings cannot function without a
governing frame of reference to help them understand life and find their way in the world. That
is exactly what a worldview is and does… All persons as persons have some kind of worldview
outlook whether they realize it, or can explain it, or not.[45]
Of course, the worldview beliefs a person holds is far from being a narrowly intellectual
matter. Hence David Naugle discusses how life ‘proceeds “cardioptically” out of a vision of the
heart with its deeply embedded ideas, affections, choices, and object of worship.’[46] Sire
comments that ‘This notion would be easier to grasp if the word heart bore in today’s world the
weight it bears in Scripture. The biblical concept includes the notions of wisdom (Proverbs
2:10), emotion (Exodus 4:14; Jn. 14:1), desire and will (1 Chronicles 29:18), spirituality (Acts
8:21) and intellect (Romans 1:21).’[47]
Glen Schultz explains that: ‘At the foundation of a person’s life, we find his beliefs. These
beliefs shape his values, and his values drive his actions.’[48] What we believe about the
answers to the fundamental questions (whether consciously or unconsciously) affects our
attitudes, decisions and actions in life. That is, our worldview is the foundation of our spirituality
(cf. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 10:5). A belief is someone’s view of how reality is. According to
J.P. Moreland: ‘A belief’s impact on behaviour is a function of three of the belief’s traits: its
content, strength, and centrality.’[49] The content of a belief is what is believed. Reality is
indifferent to what we believe about it, or how sincere our beliefs are. Our beliefs about reality
are true or false depending upon the way reality actually is.[50] A belief’s strength is ‘the
degree to which you are convinced the belief is true... The more certain you are of a belief… the
more you rely on it as a basis for action.’[51] The centrality of a belief ‘is the degree of
importance the belief plays in your entire set of beliefs, that is, in your worldview.’[52] The
more central a belief is in our noetic structure, the greater the effect would be on one’s
spirituality were the belief in question to be revised or abandoned: ‘In sum, the content,
strength and centrality of a person’s beliefs play a powerful role in determining the person’s
character and behaviour.’[53]
Following James W. Sire [54], we can plot beliefs on a spectrum with two axes measuring
strength and content, from strong belief to strong disbelief, and from vague belief to specific
belief. Beliefs can be simultaneously more or less vague and more or less strong components of
our noetic structure:
An ancient Greek erecting an altar ‘to an unknown god’ may believe very strongly that such
a deity exists whilst necessarily having a vague idea about its nature. The Christian may believe
strongly that God is Trinitarian, whilst having only the vaguest idea of how God is Trinitarian.
[55]
The content, strength and centrality of what we believe is and isn’t true about reality
affects what attitudes we take towards reality and what practices our spirituality includes (e.g.
no-one can pray to a God they are certain doesn’t exist, while someone certain that ‘some kind’
of a deity exists may lack any confidence that he is the sort of deity that would attend to their
prayers):
Our worldview beliefs ground our spiritual attitudes which thereby jointly sustain our
spiritual practices.
All spiritualities can be analyzed in terms of this three-part generic structure.[56]
As suggested by its earliest description as ‘The Way’ (cf. John 14:6, Acts 11:26 & 22:4),
Christianity is a way of life (a spirituality) centred upon knowing and following Jesus Christ –
who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (John 14:6). Jesus calls upon us to enter into true
spirituality through a strong, central belief in a specific God (as revealed in and through his own
person). The following diagram represents the resultant inner structure of Christian spirituality,
as defined by Jesus, Peter and Paul:
The tripartite understanding of spirituality as a matter of orthodoxy, orthopraxy and
orthopathy should have a familiar ring to those acquainted with Jesus’ response to a teacher of
the law about the requirement to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart [i.e. your will,
your attitudes]... and with all your mind [including your worldview], and with all your strength
[i.e. your actions]’ (Mark 12:30, my italics).[57] The same structure is seen in the crowd’s
response to Peter at Pentecost:
When the people heard this [i.e. when they gave mental assent to the truth-claims
about Jesus and his resurrection], they were cut to the heart [their attitude was one of
positive response] and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’
[they acted in response]. (Acts 2:37)
1 Peter 3:15 urges Christians:
In your hearts [broadly construed as a matter of both mind and attitude] set apart
Christ as Lord and always be prepared to give [i.e. this is something one must be prepared
to do] an answer for the reason [i.e. an apologia] for the hope that you have [in your heart].
But do this with [a heart attitude of] gentleness and respect. (my emphasis)[58]
Paul likewise advises the Colossians:
And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts [‘all your heart’], to which indeed you were
called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and
admonishing one another in all wisdom [‘all your mind’], singing psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do [‘all your
strength’], in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to
God the Father through him. (Colossians. 3:14-17, ESV, my emphasis)[59]
