Apologia. Apologetic(s). The word and its derivatives appear nineteen times in the New Testament. It means literally "to take oneself off a charge" or "to defend oneself." In nearly every instance in the New Tes­tament it refers to a Christian's re­sponse to legal prosecution, perse­cution or inquiry. For this reason the word is rendered variously as an­swer, defense, excuse or explanation. It was also in this narrow and tech­nical sense that the early church fa­thers wrote many "Apologies" for Christianity against the slander of unbelievers, persecution and legal oppression.

The concept and practice of apologetics slowly evolved, however, into a much broader application. In the fourth century, for example, Au­gustine defended Christianity against pagan accusations concern­ing Rome's demise. In the eleventh century Anselm attempted to ex­plain the irrationality of unbelief and also to vindicate God's purpose in the incarnation. In the centuries thereafter, great intellects such as Aquinas, Butler, Locke, Hodge, Orr, and C.S. Lewis all sought in various ways to stem the tide of unbelief and to illustrate the reasonableness of Christianity. Today we still face in­tellectual challenges that are very grave. What are these "charges" that confront contemporary Christianity?

Charges against Christianity⤒🔗

First, for many, Christianity seems ir­relevant. It is not germane for daily life. It is not "politically correct." It is not intellectually tenable. It is, in short, perceived as inherently unrea­sonable, divisive, obscurant and toxic. (In this day and age, who needs God anyway?) Ben Meyer wrote recently: "For the heritage of Christian belief affirms as indispensable what the heritage of modern culture ex­cludes as impossible."¹  The "modern Christian dilemma" is the "incom­patibility between intellectual hon­esty and traditional Christian be­lief."² Or, as J. Gresham Machen pro­claimed earlier in this century: "False ideas are the greatest obstacle to the reception of the gospelIII."³ Indeed, "false ideas" are a great hindrance in evangelism. As a result, in our secular, materialistic world, Chris­tianity no longer compels. It simply does not "make sense" anymore.

Perhaps this explains why the ma­jority of converts in the West are young people and why so many ab­dicate their faith after en­tering college. Perhaps this explains as well why Christians, particularly evangelicals, have so little influence in academia and other places of power. It is ironic, therefore, that some in the economi­cally devastated, former Communist East appeal to us, saying: "...the greatest problem is not that we don't have enough sausages. Far worse, we don't have enough ideas. We don't know what to think. The ground has been pulled out from under us" (emphasis mine). It is unfortunate that in these prosperous economic times in America, the "greatest problem" sometimes still appears to us to be the dearth of "sausages" and not ideas. As Christians, the intellectual ground has been "pulled out from under us" as well, but many do not seem to realize this or care.

Secondly, Christianity is viewed by many as merely one variety of generic reli­gion. For various reasons, religion today in general is quite amorphous and pluralistic. Devotees approach the sacred realm as a sort of experi­ential smorgasbord. In such a syn­cretistic milieu, beliefs are mixed and matched according to fad, fash­ion and psychic need. Tolerance and relativism are creedal assumptions. Christianity is no longer viewed as justifiably unique or exclusive. Cyn­ics charge: Christianity is merely another, particularly noxious "weed" in the "garden of god."

What, then, is the reason for this lamentable perception of our faith? Why is Christianity perceived as irrelevant? Why is it viewed by many as merely one variety of generic religion? One explanation is that, sadly, evangelical Christianity itself, as a reluctant and imperfect cultural mirror, suffers from a virile subjectivism, docile anti-intellectualism, and syncretistic tendency which often causes it to appear irrelevant and implausible. We see this malaise reflected in the church where New Age ideas are infringing on the doctrine of God, Christology, and spiritual guidance. We see it in deviations from the Biblical doctrine of man. There is, for example, an overemphasis on self-image, victimization and unbiblical (psycho-logistic) counseling. We see it also in the uncritical acquiescence to consumerism and the passive, undiscriminating acceptance of much that the media serves up. We see it in the quality of preaching. There is too little scholarship and too much emphasis on application, on addressing faddish "felt needs" rather than the ever present "unfelt needs" for insight and instruction. In other words, preaching today often neglects the "indicative" of Scripture while stressing the "imperative," with the result that sermons do not often challenge our minds or our cherished cultural assumptions. We see it also in the burgeoning "feel good" small-group movement, which unfortunately does "little to increase the Biblical knowledge of their members... (and where) many of the groups encourage faith to be subjective and pragmatic."⁴  Finally, we witness in particular an anti-in­tellectualism manifested in evange­lism training. The emphasis today is on one-on-one, "life-style" evange­lism. But, where is the content? How are we to answer the objections we encounter? In short, where is our apologetic (1 Peter 3:15, Philippians 1:7)?

Could it be that we have forgotten how to love God with our minds? We have a religion of the heart, but have we stopped think­ing? In fact, it seems we are afraid of thinking, of being "intellectual." Have we forgotten that since the advent of the New Tes­tament, our "Holy War" is fought now with prayer and persuasion? Have we forgotten that Paul debated with his opponents in order to confute and convert them? Have we forgotten that many of our greatest church leaders throughout Christian history were highly educated? Is it any coinci­dence that the Reformation and many revivals resulted from the im­pact of new (Biblically informed) ideas upon the intelligentsia?

Remedies←⤒🔗

Finally, how can this sad situation be remedied? How can we overcome the many "false ideas" today which hinder our evangelism, plague our churches, and stunt our apologetics? How can we forsake anti-intellectu­alism? How can we regain the cog­nitive "high ground"? One way is to foster Christian scholarship in order to purge false ideas from the church, and to reassert our intellectual cred­ibility. For, if our weap­ons truly are prayer and persuasion, then our battlefields are not only the prayer meeting, but also evangelism, apologetics and educa­tion. We must devote ourselves anew to the effort to eradicate the "incompatibility be­tween intellectual hon­esty and traditional Christian belief" and "take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). For this reason we should invest much more money in our future lead­ers, their ideas, and Christian educational institutions. Christian el­ementary and secondary schools languish for lack of resources. Chris­tian colleges and seminaries often are underfunded. As for advanced study at the masters or doctoral level, there is precious little schol­arship money, especially for the study of apologetics. This ought not to be. We should be seeking and cultivating the next Jonathan Edwards, Francis Schaeffer, C. S. Lewis and Cornelius Van Til.

Another way to remedy the situa­tion is to recapture the apologetic and eclectic thrust of the Mission Dei. We must recognize that our apolo­getic is associated with and vitalized by God's indictment, or apologetic, against humanity (Romans 1:18). Ac­cording to Romans 1:20 mankind is "without an apologetic" (anapologetos). Mankind is, in fact, "without an excuse" for its impiety, given the revelation of God within man and nature (Romans 1:19, 20). For this reason, then, we should view our apologetic, as did Paul, not merely as the defense of the faith, but as part and parcel of God's polemic, or of­fensive, against all forms of idolatry (Romans 1:25; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10).

A third way is to rediscover the tran­scendental and presuppositional nature of the Biblical apologetic as exempli­fied in the work of Cornelius Van Til, protégé of Machen and late profes­sor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadel­phia. Van Til sought to reconstruct and reform apologetics and episte­mology in light of the Biblical no­tions of the creator-creature distinc­tion, common grace and the noetic effects of sin. Put simply, Van Til asked and answered these three questions:

1. What kind of reasoning is fitting for a creature?
2. What kind of reasoning is typical of a sinner?
3. What kind of method is proper in apologetics?

Obviously this essay is itself an apologia. It is an apologetic for apologetics. We need apologetics today more than ever to foster evan­gelism and to defend Christianity against the "charges" and "slander" (even oppression) inherent in mo­dernity and post-modern relativistic pluralism. But in order to move for­ward, we must first alter the way we think, the way we speak, and, not least of all, the way we give. We should become like the sons of Issachar (1Chronicles 12:32), who in their time discerned what God was doing and offered themselves and their re­sources in that hour of opportunity.