The problem is moral not mental

People don't resist the gospel because of intellectual issues; they resist it because they live lives opposed to God and can't stand the idea of change.

So Phillip Jensen highlights the problem with apologetics:

the real problem of apologetics lies in its distorting effect upon Christianity. As we seek to express the Christian gospel in the terms of outsiders we are unwittingly tempted to distort its teaching. Augustine could understand Christianity in Neo-Platonic terms, as Aquinas could in Aristotelian terms. The very activity of apologetics, even aggressive apologetics addresses the gospel to the mind rather than to the conscience. It assumes that people's difficulty with Christianity is mental rather than moral. It easily gives the impression that we are to sit in judgment over God rather than he over us. Thus modern apologetics must attack the lifestyle of the pagan and not just the clever rationalizations that he uses. Giving answer to genuine enquiry is one thing. Treating the rationalization of immorality seriously is another.

I'm editing a course at the moment which is targeted at a particular subsection of Australian society, and I'm very aware of the danger of thinking that once the packaging has been shape-shifted to suit this specific audience, success will follow.

It won't. The success or failure of the message will depend entirely on God's Holy Spirit. What I need to pray is that my packaging won't get in the way too much.

Apologetics and idiot drivers

There's a story behind the latest op-ed piece that I did for the Daily Tele on Paris Hilton.

I e-mailed Justin at the Tele and asked if he wanted a piece on Mohammed Haneef, the cousin of the man involved in the failed Glasgow bombing attempt. Haneef was arrested last month under our new terrorism laws and interrogated for nearly two weeks before being released and deported without being charged.

His e-mail back said, thanks for the offer, but our readers aren't that interested and I wouldn't want you to waste your time. But you could do something on Paris Hilton or idiot drivers.

Hence the Paris Hilton piece.

Now I am a great fan of apologetics and see my writing for the paper in this category—apologetics here defined as using arguments to defend a Christian world view or attack a non-christian world view, with the ultimate intention of winning a better hearing for the gospel. In fact I've just finished a four week session with a group from 5.00 church at St Paul's Carlingford on just this subject (Thanks Chris F and Tracy G for the help!)

But this e-mail exchange with Justin was a good reminder of what I already believe, which is that apologetics is always going to be a handmaiden to evangelism—that is, it should take second place to telling people the gospel. There are a huge number of people out there who just don't have a great interest in the outside world; or at least, not the sort of things that Christian apologists sometimes feel they ought to be interested in. To destroy a person's unsustainable and damaging world view by clever and intelligent argument is a good thing to attempt. But there will be a good proportion of the population who will rise from the ashes to say "Right...so who do you reckon will win the game on Saturday?"

In Romans 1:16 Paul insists "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." [italics mine]

There is a lot to be said for cutting straight to the chase and just telling people the simple, unadorned news that in Jesus Christ, through his death and resurrection, the full forgiveness of sin is available to those who repent and trust him as Lord. If Justin at the Tele was a Christian, he would tell you that's pretty much what the readers need to hear (not to mention the rest of us).