LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
In the Footsteps of Paul
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
In the Footsteps of Paul
Paul’s Athenian mission, as recorded by Luke in Acts 17:16-34,[87] exemplifies the three-
dimensional (beliefs, attitudes and actions) approach to Christian persuasion that I am calling
apologetics ‘in 3D’. This observation is important because, at the very least, apologetic
methodology shouldn’t run contrary to scriptural principles or examples. Moreover, the
apologetic advice about worldview analysis that I have incorporated within my definition of
apologetics is often drawn from, or illustrated with reference to, Luke’s ‘brief rendition of what
must have been a much longer speech that Paul gave in Athens’ [88] before the Areopagus
council.[89]
Paul was ‘a highly educated man’ [90] who was ‘well acquainted with pagan “high culture”
– an acquaintance that, when sanctified, would thrust him, not Simon Peter, forward as the
apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13).’[91] Paul was a Tarsian from Cilicia (cf. Acts 9:30; 21:39;
22:3) where the famous Roman orator Cicero had been governor: ‘a centre of Hellenistic
culture, claiming to rival Athens and Alexandria in its fame for learning. Paul was a child of two
cultures.’[92] Tarsus was also the native city of several famous Stoic philosophers – including
Antipater, Athenadorus, Nestor and Zeno.[93]
Paul’s deliberative address before the Areopagus follows classical standards far too closely
for the match to be written off as an accident.[94] Indeed, taking account of Paul’s socio-
rhetorical and educational background [95], as well as his evident ‘fluency in Greek and
familiarity with Greek rhetoric,’[96] it seems plausible a priori to think he was familiar – at least
indirectly – with Aristotle’s thinking on The Art of Rhetoric. In Colossians 4:4-6 Paul not only lists
the same three elements of rhetoric as Aristotle, but he lists them in the same order (which is
suggestive of familiarity with Aristotle’s work):
Please pray that I will make the message as clear as possible. When you are with
unbelievers, always make good use of the time. Be pleasant [ethos] and hold their interest
[pathos] when you speak the message. Choose your words carefully and be ready to give
answers to anyone who asks questions [logos]. (CEV)
There are even a few suggestive parallels between Paul’s writings and The Art of Rhetoric.
[97] At the very least, Paul displays an implicit understanding of The Art of Rhetoric; and Paul’s
Areopagus speech provides a model of using good rhetoric to communicate the gospel.[98]
Paul came to Athens as a herald of Christian spirituality.[99] Like all spiritualities,
Christianity has a three-fold structure encompassing faith – i.e. a heart attitude of trust (in
Jesus) mediated by certain worldview beliefs – and works. Paul believed that Christian
spirituality is true, beautiful and good. He thus desired to persuasively communicate Christian
spirituality to the Pagan Athenians. As a pre-requisite to this task, Paul studied and analysed
different Athenian spiritualities (i.e. polytheistic, Stoic and Epicurean spiritualities). In each case
he sought to affirm what was true and beautiful and good in these spiritualities in order to
discover common ground with his audience; but he also noted things he judged as false, ugly or
bad.[100] Having done his homework (so to speak) Paul ‘took the roof off’ of Athenian
spirituality and gave his apologia for Christian spirituality, making good use of ethos, pathos and
logos. Let’s briefly review Paul’s rhetoric in each of the three rhetorical categories:
In terms of ethos – Paul displayed a deep interest in and understanding of his audience’s
spirituality (including their worldviews and cultures [101]). He ‘looked carefully at [their] objects
of worship.’ (Acts 17:23) Then, as Darrell L. Bock observes, ‘despite being aggravated by all the
idolatry he sees around him in Athens, Paul manages to share the gospel with a generous but
honest spirit... Both message and tone are important in sharing the gospel. Here Paul is an
example of both.’[102] Even Paul’s opening manner of address – ‘Men’ followed by the
designation ‘Athenians’ (Acts 17:22) – was ‘thoroughly Greek’,[103] putting his audience at ease
(cf. 1 Corinthians 9:22). Paul’s willingness to engage with Greek culture bore fruit in his
masterful use of the altar ‘To an unknown god’ [104] and citations by memory (the rhetorical
tool of anamnesis) [105] from several Greek writers. The examples he used to develop his
theology of God were shared beliefs with the Stoics in the audience.[106] Paul went as far as he
could in agreeing with his audience before critiquing their views. Whatever the terminology –
‘taking the roof off’ or ‘worldview analysis’ – this approach, which seeks to understand those to
whom the gospel is being offered and to meet them on common ground, clearly underlies
Paul’s critique of the Polytheistic, Epicurean and Stoic worldviews. Such an approach exhibits a
truly Christian ethos. Contemporary apologists should likewise take a serious interest in the
spirituality and culture of those with whom they wish to engage.
In terms of pathos – Paul engaged with certain of his audience’s religious piety and feelings
of fear at a failure to be sufficiently pious – as revealed by the altar ‘to an unknown god’. He
also exploited (artistically expressed) points of agreement and disagreement with and between
the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, as well as between both philosophies and the polytheistic
religion of the state. Both philosophical schools had accommodated themselves to polytheism.
Paul’s call to a consistent monotheism had uncomfortable socio-political ramifications for his
audience. Contemporary apologists should likewise address people’s felt needs and seek
lovingly to engender a spiritual ‘cognitive dissonance’, affirming truth, goodness and beauty in
alternative spiritualities without flinching from critiquing falsehood, evil and ugliness therein
(the apologist must not be cowed by the demands of ‘political correctness’).
Although Paul connected with his audience through ethos and pathos, he placed great
emphasis upon issues related to logos and worldview (albeit as expressed in the beauty of
Greek art and the practices of Greek religious culture). In terms of logos – Paul engaged with
the natural theology of his audience, discussed historical revelation and presented evidence for
Jesus’ resurrection. Contemporary apologists should likewise use philosophical and evidential
arguments to provide rational confirmation of Christian spirituality, respond to criticisms of
Christian spirituality and press criticisms against non-Christian spiritualities.
In sum, Paul exhibits an apologetic methodology that first compares and contrasts Christian
and non-Christian spiritualities in terms of their truth, beauty and goodness before using the
central elements of classical rhetoric to convince interested parties to embrace the spirituality
of ‘the way’ based upon its superior merits in each transcendental category.
This matrix does not constitute an ‘argumentative strategy’, nor a step-by-step apologetic
methodology, but rather an integrated conceptual framework for apologetics.[108] I am not
suggesting that the apologist begin at the level of beliefs communicated by logos and judged by
the standard of truth before moving on to deal in pathos, etc. I am suggesting that the apologist
bear in mind the fact that, whether they are dealing with a query about truth or an objection
about the behaviour of Christians, everything included within this matrix is related to
everything else, and that it is therefore just as much of a mistake for the apologist to focus
upon narrowly academic issues of truth at the expense of attitudes and actions as it would be
to focus upon attitudes and actions without any reference to truth.
It is only in embracing such a holistic vision of their divinely appointed apologetic calling
that Christians can joyfully rise to meet the contemporary missional challenge laid out by Alister
McGrath:
If Christianity is to regain the imaginative ascendency, it must recover what G.K. Chesterton
(1874-1936) termed ‘the romance of orthodoxy’. It is not sufficient to show that orthodoxy …
has been tried and tested against its intellectual alternatives… The real challenge is for the
churches to demonstrate that orthodoxy is imaginatively compelling, emotionally engaging,
aesthetically enhancing, and personally liberating.[109]
Indeed, it is only in embracing this challenge that the church can fully embrace its own
nature as the body of Christ, for we are called ‘to demonstrate and embody … the truth, beauty
and goodness of faith.’[110]
Conclusion
Whilst recognizing the wisdom of building apologetic dialogue upon common ground, and
the related importance of worldview analysis as an apologetic tool, I have argued that
apologists should also keep the bigger picture of spirituality in mind. As Schaeffer explained:
‘The purpose of “apologetics” is not just to win an argument or a discussion, but that the
people with whom we are in contact may become Christians and then live under the Lordship
of Christ in the whole spectrum of life.’[111] With this goal in mind I have offered a holistic
vision of apologetics as the art of persuasively advocating Christian spirituality across
spiritualities, through the responsible use of classical rhetoric, as being objectively true,
beautiful and good.[112]
References
[1] ‘Metapologetics refers to the study of the nature and methods of apologetics.’ – Kenneth D.
Boa & Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending
Christianity (Milton-Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), p.4.
[2] In advancing this definition I am not centrally concerned with the question of what Steven B.
Cowan calls ‘argumentative strategy’ (i.e. the debate between classical, evidential, cumulative,
presuppositional and reformed apologetic methodologies). Contemporary discussions of
apologetic methodology have highlighted a measure of rapprochement between different
argumentative strategies – cf. Steven B. Cowan (ed.), Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 2000); Kenneth D. Boa & Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons:
An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005). I
personally favour a broadly classical but cumulative method grounded in a reformed
epistemology. cf. Peter S. Williams, A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism (Milton Keynes; Paternoster,
2009); Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment (Milton Keynes; Paternoster,
2011). Discussions about ‘argumentative strategy’ far from exhaust the range of issues falling
under metapologetics, cf. Gregory E. Ganssle, ‘Making the Gospel Connection: An Essay
Concerning Applied Apologetics’ in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays In Christian Apologetics
(eds. Paul Copan & William Lane Craig; Nashville, Tennessee; B&H Academic, 2012); Sean
McDowell (ed.), Apologetics For A New Generation (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 2009);
Scott R. Burson & Jerry L. Walls, C.S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from
the most influential Apologists of Our Time (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1998).
[3] Gregory E. Ganssle distinguishes between the ‘theological’, ‘academic’ and ‘missional’
themes of the apologetic enterprise, cf. ‘Making the Gospel Connection: An Essay Concerning
Applied Apologetics’ in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays In Christian Apologetics (eds. Paul
Copan & William Lane Craig; Nashville, Tennessee; B&H Academic, 2012).
[4] R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner & Arthur Lindsey, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defence of the
Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan, 1984), p.13.
[5] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Leicester: IVP,
2002), p.12.
[6] Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity (Nashville, Tennessee;
Broadman & Holdman, 1997), p.ix.
[7] James E. Taylor, Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian Commitment (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006), p.6.
[8] Francis J. Beckwith, ‘Introduction’ in To Everyone An Answer: A Case For The Christian
Worldview (Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland eds.; Downers Grove,
Illinois: IVP, 2004), p.13.
[9] John Frame, ‘Presuppositional Apologetics’ Five Views on Apologetics (Steven B. Cowan, ed.;
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000), p.215.
[10] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Third Edition
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2008), p.15.
[11] Norman L. Geisler & Patrick Zukeran, The Apologetics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker, 2009), p.11.
[12] H. Wayne House & Dennis W. Jowers, Reason for Our Hope: An Introduction To Christian
Apologetics (Nashville, Tennessee; Broadman & Holdman, 2011), p.2.
[13] Cf. William Lane Craig, ‘The Absurdity of Life Without God’.
[14] Taylor spends ten pages expanding upon his definition of apologetics, cf. An Introduction to
Apologetics, pp.17-27.
[15] Gregory P. Koukl, ‘Tactics’ in To Everyone An Answer: A Case For The Christian Worldview
(Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland eds.; Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP,
2004), p.55. cf. Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009).
[16] Alister McGrath notes: ‘the New Testament [has a] tendency to mingle kerygma and
apologia… both are essential components of the New Testament conception of the
proclamation of Christ. The New Testament brings the two together in a creative and
productive interplay: to proclaim the gospel is to defend the gospel, just as to defend the
gospel is to proclaim the gospel.’ – Bridge Building, p.49. Douglas Groothuis urges: ‘The artificial
separation of evangelism from apologetics must end… The apostle Paul serves as a model for us
in that he both proclaimed and defended the gospel in the book of Acts… Jesus also rationally
defended his views as well as proclaiming them.’ – ‘A Manifesto for Christian Apologetics:
Nineteen Theses to Shake the World with the Truth’ in Reasons for Faith: Making A Case for
Christian Faith (eds. Norman L. Geisler & Chad V. Meister; Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books,
2007), p.404. cf. Peter May, Dialogue in Evangelism (Grove, 1990); ‘What is Apologetics?’ &
‘Persuasion – the centre piece of effective evangelism’.
[17] Francis A. Schaefer, ‘The Undivided Schaeffer: A Retrospective Interview with Francis
Schaeffer, September 30, 1980’ in Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life
(Nottingham: IVP, 2008), pp.218 & 220.
[18] Cf. Robert Audi, Rationality and Religious Commitment (OUP, 2011).
[19] Douglas Groothuis, On Pascal (Thompson Wadsworth, 2003), p.41.
[20] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith
(Nottingham; Apollos, 2011), p.20.
[21] Ibid, p.29.
[22] Doug Powell, Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics (Nashville Tennessee:
Holman Reference, 2006), p.16.
[23] Cf. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (1968) in The Complete Works of Francis A.
Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview – Volume 1: A Christian View of Philosophy and Culture
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994), pp.133-134, 135, 138, & 140-141. In a similar vein,
Nick Pollard writes about the process of positive deconstruction: ‘The process is
“deconstruction” because I am helping people to deconstruct (that is, take apart) what they
believe in order to look carefully at the belief and analyse it. The process is “positive” because
this deconstruction is done in a positive way – in order to replace it with something better… The
process of positive deconstruction recognizes and affirms the elements of truth to which
individuals already hold, but also helps them to discover for themselves the inadequacies of the
underlying worldviews they have absorbed. The aim is to awaken a heart response that says, “I
am not so sure that what I believe is right after all. I want to find out more about Jesus.”’ –
Evangelism Made Slightly Less Difficult (Leicester: IVP, 1997), pp.41 & 44.
[24] ‘Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically
uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being
unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior.’ – The Skeptic's
Dictionary (2005).
[25] Boa & Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, p.xiii.
[26] E.g. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1995);
Norman L. Geisler & William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook On World Views (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989); Arthur F. Holmes, Contours of a Worldview (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983); Chad V. Meister, Building Belief: Constructing Faith from the
Ground Up (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews In Conflict:
Choosing Christianity In A World Of Ideas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992); James W.
Sire, The Universe Next Door, fifth edition (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009).
[27] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, fifth edition (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), p.17.
[28] D.A. Carson, ‘Athens Revisited’ in D.A. Carson (ed.), Telling the Truth: Evangelizing
Postmoderns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p.398.
[29] Boa & Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, pp.89, 134 & 135.
[30] Cf. Footnote 26.
[31] Nash, Worldviews In Conflict, 16.
[32] Robert L. Reymond, Faith’s Reasons For Believing (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2008), pp.25-
26.
[33] McGrath, How Shall We Reach Them?, p.17.
[34] Alister E. McGrath, Mere Apologetics: How To Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2012), p.11. See also Michael Green & Alister McGrath, How Shall We
Reach Them? Defending and Communicating The Christian Faith To Nonbelievers (Milton
Keynes: Word, 1995).
[35] C.S. Lewis, ‘Christian Apologetics’ in Compelling Reason (London: Fount, 1996), p.78.
[36] Gregory E. Ganssle, ‘Making the Gospel Connection: An Essay Concerning Applied
Apologetics’ in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays In Christian Apologetics (eds. Paul Copan &
William Lane Craig; Nashville, Tennessee; B&H Academic, 2012), p.5.
[37] This advice is the implicit backbone of Norman L. Geisler’s Christian Apologetics (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1995).
[38] Cf. J. Daryl Charles, ‘Engaging the (Neo)Pagan Mind: Paul’s Encounter with Athenian
Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics (Acts 17:16-34),’ Trinity Journal, 16:1 (Spring 1995),
pp.47-62; Lars Dahle, ‘Acts 17:16-34. An Apologetic Model Then and Now?’, Tyndale Bulletin
53.2 (2002), 313-316; ‘Acts 17 and the Biblical Basis for Apologetics’ (ELF, 2005); ‘Acts 17 as an
apologetic model’, Whitefield Briefing, Vol. 7, No. 1 (March 2002) ‘Encountering and Engaging a
Postmodern Context: Applying the apologetic model in Acts 17’, Whitefield Briefing, Vol. 7, No.
6 (December 2002); J.I. Packer, ‘Paul Against Pluralism’ in Tough-Minded Christianity: Honoring
the Legacy of John Warwick Montgomery (William A. Dembski & Thomas Schirrmacher, eds.;
Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2008), pp.2-19.
[39] Cf. Julian Baggini, ‘You don’t have to be religious to pray’; Alain de Botton, Religion for
Atheists (Hamish Hamilton, 2012); Robert C. Solomon, Spirituality for the Skeptic: The
Thoughtful Love of life, new edition (Oxford University Press, 2006); Andre Comte-Sponville, The
Book Of Atheist Spirituality: An Elegant Argument for Spirituality Without God (London: Bantam
Press, 2008).
[40] Alexander W. Astin, Helen S. Astin & Jennifer A. Lindholm, Cultivating the Spirit: How
College Can Enhance Student’s Inner Lives (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011), p.4.
[41] Unless otherwise specified, all scriptural quotations are from the TNIV.
[42] Perry G. Downs, Teaching For Spiritual Growth (Zondervan, 1994), p.25.
[43] This definition correlates with the schema undergirding Cognitive Behavioural Therapy:
‘CBT can help you to make sense of overwhelming problems by breaking them down into
smaller parts… These parts are: A Situation – a problem, event or difficult situation. From this
can follow: Thoughts, Emotions, Physical feelings, Actions. Each of these areas can affect the
others. How you think about a problem can affect how you feel physically and emotionally. It
can also alter what you do about it.’ See here. Cf. Lawrence J. Crabb, Effective Biblical
Counselling: How to become a capable counsellor (London: Marshall Pickering, 1990), especially
chapter five. See also Josh McDowell, ‘A Relevant Apologetic’ in Reasons for Faith: Making A
Case for the Christian Faith (Norman L. Geisler & Chad V. Meister eds.; Wheaton, Illinois:
Crossway, 2007), pp.27-39 & Sean McDowell, ‘Apologetics For An Emerging Generation’ in
Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics (eds. Paul Copan &
William Lane Craig; Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2007), pp.258-271; Abigail James &
Adrian Wells, ‘Religion and mental health: Towards a cognitive-behavioural framework’, British
Journal of Health Psychology, Volume 8, Issue 3 (September 2003), pp.359-376.
[44] It’s worth remembering that the pre-requisite of tolerance is the belief that what one is
tolerating is wrong (but to be admitted to the intellectual marketplace nonetheless). It is the
self-contradictory postmodern rejection of the belief that mutually contradictory beliefs cannot
all be true that is the quintessentially intolerant spirituality, because it seeks to exclude
everything beside itself from the intellectual marketplace.
[45] David Naugle, Worldview and Church: An Interview with David Naugle.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Sire, The Universe Next Door, fifth edition, p.20.
[48] Glen Schultz, Kingdom Education (Nashville: LifeWay Press, 1998), p.39.
[49] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1997), p.73.
[50] Cf. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against The Challenges Of
Postmodernism (Leicester: IVP, 2000); J.P. Moreland, ‘What is Truth?’.
[51] Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, p.74.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid, p.75.
[54] Cf. James W. Sire, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? (Leicester: IVP, 1994), p.22.
[55] Cf. Peter S. Williams, ‘Understanding the Trinity’.
[56] What Bill Smith says of Christian spirituality actually goes for all spiritualities: ‘Biblical
spirituality is holistic in the truest sense. It encompasses reason and feeling… we need to
proclaim and live a ... Christianity that integrates the mind (orthodoxy), the heart (orthopathy)
and the hands (orthopraxy).’ – ‘Blazing the North-South Trail’, Just Thinking, Winter 2001, p.11.
[57] In point of fact, Mark 12:30 reads: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart [kardia] and
with all your soul [psyche] and with all your mind [dianoia] and with all your strength [ischus].’
However, Mark includes the response to Jesus’ answer from the scholar who prompted it: ‘we
must love God with all our heart, mind, and strength.’ (Mark 12:33) In Matthew 22:37 Jesus
says: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’.
In Luke 10:27 Jesus says: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your strength and with all your mind.’ While the synoptic gospels present us with the
authentic voice of Jesus, they don’t present us with his precise words here (indeed, in Luke it
isn’t Jesus, but the teacher of the law, who is quoted). However, in each case there’s a clear
reference to Deuteronomy, which contains the tripartite command to ‘Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.’ (Deuteronomy 6:5, cf.
Joshua 22:5) We may take ‘soul’ here as synonymous with ‘mind’, although ‘soul’ can be used
to refer to the specific capacity of the human mind or spirit to relate to God (cf. Psalm 42:1-2,
Psalm 103:2). It may be that ‘heart’ and ‘soul’ were paired by Jesus in the sense of ‘I love you
heart and soul’ (i.e. ‘with all that I am’), while ‘strength’ and ‘mind’ were pared to suggest both
the inner (mind) and outer (strength) aspects of a person’s life. R. Laird Harris et al comment:
‘McBride observed: “The three parts of Deut 6:5: lev (heart), nephesh (soul or life), and meod
(muchness) … were chosen to reinforce the absolute singularity of personal devotion to God.
Thus lev denotes the intention or will of the whole man; nephesh means the whole self, a unity
of flesh, will, and vitality; and meod accents the superlative degree of total commitment to
Yahweh.”... The NT struggles to express the depth of the word meod… In the quotation in Mk
12:30 it is rendered “mind and strength,” in Lk 10:27 it is “strength and mind,” in Mt 22:37
simply “mind”.’ – Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999),
487 – ‘How did “mind” get into the Shema?’ see here. Because Jesus refers to both the heart
and the mind/soul, I use ‘heart’ in a slightly narrower sense than that used by Naugle and Sire
(who use the term to refer to both ‘the heart’ and ‘the mind’). Jesus’ God-centred principle
commandment is of course immediately and organically followed by the self-and-other-centred
command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12:31 & 33, cf. Leviticus 19:18).
[58] ‘Peter is calling us not simply to a rational, one-dimensional response that addresses the
intellect of the listener, but rather to a full-orbed apologetic that engages the entire person:
mind, will and emotions… what Peter offers us here in the classic apologetic text is a vision of a
thoroughly integrated, holistic apologetic.’ – Scott R. Burson & Jerry L. Walls, C.S. Lewis &
Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the most influential Apologists of Our Time
(Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1998), pp.251-252.
[59] The context of Paul’s discussion puts the emphasis on the heart-attitude of the Colossians;
but it’s clear that this attitude is formed in response to a strong and specific knowledge of the
word (logos) of Christ, and that the appropriate attitude to this word (i.e. not only Christ’s
teachings, but to the very person of Christ who makes them ‘one body’) results in actions
reflecting the nature (‘in the name’) of Christ.
[60] Cf. Peter S. Williams, ‘Blind Faith in Blind Faith’.
[61] C.E.M. Joad, The Recovery of Belief (London: Faber, 1952), pp.16-17.
[62] Koukl, Tactics, p.25.
[63] Elizabeth A. Dreyer & John B. Bennett, Spirituality in Health and Education Newsletter,
Volume 3, issue 1, September 2006.
[64] Cf. Charles Colson & Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (London: Marshall Pickering,
1999), pp.307-316; Theodore J. Chamberlain & Christopher A. Hall, Realized Religion: Research
on the Relationship between Religion and Health (London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000);
Mark Baker & Richard Gorsuch, ‘Trait Anxiety and Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiousness’, Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1982), pp.119-122; Tara Joy Cutland,
‘Intrinsic Christianity, Psychological Distress and Help-Seeking’, PhD Thesis, University of Leeds
(2000); Kelly Furr et al, ‘Effects of L.D.S. Doctrine vs. L.D.S. Culture on Self-Esteem’
[65] Steve Fuller, The Intellectual (Cambridge: Icon, 2006), p.27.
[66] This goal is, of course, not unique to Christian apologetics. For an examination of Christian
spirituality in the context of Jesus studies, cf. Peter S. Williams, Understanding Jesus: Five Ways
to Spiritual Enlightenment (Paternoster, 2011). See also: Charles Colson & Nancy Pearcey, How
Now Shall We Live? (London: Marshall Pickering, 1999); J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007); (Audio CD) John Mark Reynolds, Contending for the
Christian Worldview (Christian Apologetics: Biola University).
[67] Alister McGrath, How Shall We Reach Them? Defending and Communicating The Christian
Faith To Nonbelievers (Word, 1995), p.18.
[68] Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric (Trans H. C. Lawson-Tancred; London: Penguin, 2004), p.70.
[69] Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, p.80.
[70] Ibid, p.74.
