Christians must use all three weapons at their disposal " defence, attack and attraction " if they are to speak to a very wary secular culture, argues DR GREG CLARKE, the director for the Centre for Apologetic Scholarship and Education (CASE).

About two years ago, a flush-faced student barged into my office at New College and rammed his copy of The Da Vinci Code into my hands. "Read this!" he urged. "You'll be out of a job!"

Since there aren't that many openings for people running Christian apologetics centres on university campuses, I took him seriously and read the novel that weekend.

Meeting with my eager friend the following week, I suggested to him that the novel was built on some well-used speculations about Jesus and the history of Christianity, that it had misused some historical documents that were found in 1945, and that there was no way it would become very popular " it contained too much discussion of ancient religion. And no one is interested in that!

I have never been more wrong.

My friend was wrong, too. My job was not in jeopardy. In fact, thanks to The Da Vinci Code, the opportunities to write and speak about ancient Christianity are better than ever. It has put Christian history back on the agenda in popular culture.

It isn't alone: Mel Gibson's, The Passion of the Christ, similarly revived public interest in the Gospel accounts of Jesus, and no doubt introduced some people to his crucifixion and resurrection for the very first time.

As I write, the film of C.S. Lewis's children's fantasy, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is being prepared for release. With its central story of making atonement for the sins of another, the message of Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins, will be up in lights.

The long bridge

It seems that we are at an extraordinary time of connection between popular culture and the very central concerns of Christianity. Surely this is a golden age for apologists"”for those who seek to explain, defend and promote the Christian faith?

Well, yes and no. While popular culture has Christianity on the agenda (as do politics, bioethics and education), we are also at a time when many previously received aspects of a Christian understanding of the world are now considered defunct, unworkable and downright offensive by some
sections of Western society.

To take just one example, the view that God dwelt in human form in Jesus Christ might now be considered quaint. People still sing "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see/Hail the incarnate Deity" at Christmas, but they might as well be singing "Shoop Shoop Diddy Wop Cumma Cumma Wang Dang" such is its meaninglessness.

To many, it seems like an illogical and redundant idea. And yet this doctrine is central to understanding who Jesus is and why his death matters.
There would seem to be a long bridge from a Christian worldview to a common worldview today. So, where does someone who is concerned to reconnect the world of today with the world of Christianity, begin?

The task

1 Defend

the Christian belief; that it is true, that someone is warranted in believing it, and that it makes sense.
It is worth thinking through the reasons that you hold your beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). It means you can defend your position to the world when it enquires. For example, the incarnation is not illogical. It is not, as the philosopher Spinoza complained, like trying to describe a square circle. God is not mathematical in that way. There is no logical problem with saying that the statements "Jesus is divine' and "Jesus is human' are both true at the same time. There may be mystery and fascination there, but no logical problem.

2 Attack

alternatives to Christian belief, especially those alternatives which undermine Christian faith.

Not all are incompatible with Christianity. Not every element ought to be attacked. We should be specific not broad. It is hand-weeding, not aerial crop spraying.

I love the gentleness of Paul's attack in Acts 17:16-34. Really, it is an attack on pluralism " on their worship of many gods, even an unknown god. Paul is forthright and clearly attacks a number of points of their worldview, but it hardly seems like an attack:

3 Attract

people to Christian belief. (2 Corinthians 2:14-16, Psalm 34:8.) If we only defend it and attack others, we will still be useless.
Because of the message we have, we want to draw others to it. This is an area of enormous opportunity, and where the short cuts across the long bridge are found. People are attracted to the person of Jesus.

Knowledge of Christ is a fragrance, spreading through the world. Similarly, apologetics gives off an odour " to attract or repel. We hope to attract, but we know that not all will accept Christ. Some will recoil from his fragrance. We have to make sure people recoil for the right reasons " because of their rejection of Christ, not their rejection of us.

Extreme apologetics

When I was given the job of heading up an apologetics centre, I was reluctant to accept the word apologist for myself, because to me it conjures up images of hotheaded waistcoat wearing ne'er smiling obsessives. And I don't see myself as one of those (except for occasional waistcoat wearing in the 80s)!

Apologetics gets heavy. And when it does, its value diminishes. This is not to say that very high-level, careful work is not required. What I'm talking about is the approach to apologetics.

Argument-heavy

Providing rational arguments for the existence of God, and various Christian doctrines has been a concern of philosophically-oriented Christians since Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century, peaked in Middle ages with Thomas Aquinas, and is still big. Argument is good, but formal argument is going to lose most people after the first few minutes.

Evidence-heavy

Also known as Josh McDowell-itis.
Piling up of evidence is very important, but again not always persuasive. Evidence has to be interpreted; sometimes trying too hard to present evidence for the claims of a certain part of Scripture, for instance, has the opposite effect to what you desire"”it makes people sceptical that you are engaging in special pleading. Shouldn't it be easier to believe that this, sceptics ask?

Personality-heavy

Some apologetics is so driven by the persona of the apologist that the message seems to get mingled with the messenger. Inevitable with powerful, persuasive people, but to the enquirer can be a barrier to believe. "It's just a personality cult!" they will respond.

Culture-heavy

Excited by the prospects of connecting contemporary culture with Christian thinking, some apologists go overboard and can offer you a Christian angle on everything. I think Christians have a lot to say on most things, but looking for the Christian themes in The Incredibles may not win many people over to Christ. As much as I am a supporter of cultural approaches to apologetics"”using film, music, literature, etc"”it can become indulgent if done excessively, tritely or dubiously.