Debating is a lost cause. Don’t believe me? Let’s debate it.
I have intentionally stayed away from modern apologetics for quite some time. There was a season in my life when I looked forward to finding another proof I could use to tear apart someone else’s theology, but some time ago I started finding this approach less effective in leading people to Jesus. Funny—who knew that people didn’t like being belittled?
There’s a new paradigm of apologetics on the horizon, though. It’s a fresh approach of respect toward the individual who seems to be the offspring of all the postmodern sensitivity we’ve been working on the past several years. These overall philosophies not only redefine apologetics, but they also bring a new esteem to the concept. Through this description, I find the following characteristics the most outstanding in emergent apologetics:
The (re)emergence of the story/narrative approach.
I recently discovered the benefit of a one-point sermon in speaking to junior high students so they could remember a simple truth of Scripture. This led to wondering why I would want to give adults a more complex sermon they soon would forget or a multi-point outline that would end up filed in their Bible. Reasoning this out, I began doing one-point messages with adults, too — focusing on a single, primary point instead of the traditional three. Most of the time, I present this through personal stories, illustrative narratives and biblical examples. In the end, I find that it’s the stories I use to flesh out the points that most people remember. We still need a biblical skeleton, but without the skin it’s not nearly as interesting.
The (re)emergence of originality.
No longer can the same sermon be preached without care to the specific people in our context. One strength of emergent apologetics is its emphasis on genuinely listening to people and getting into their world. By doing so, we can craft our conversations and messages around who they are (instead of who they are not). This will help us to avoid copycat formulas and instead inspire original conversation that is alive with the spontaneity of the Spirit.
The (re)emergence of practical hope.
Eugene Peterson once expressed frustration years ago that pastors had turned into shopkeepers, making little progress for the sake of the kingdom. If people truly are struggling with questions about reality, we must help them to see the “real side” of life through the biblical lens of Jesus. This requires us to extend ourselves in fresh ways through our preaching so we move past the same old habits and truly bear witness to the hope of Christ.
The (re)emergence of biblically-based teaching.
In one of his books, C.S. Lewis made the comment that people in the medieval era were fascinated by light. In contrast, moderns primarily were fascinated by size and dazzle. Postmoderns, it seems, are more intrigued with substance and authenticity. While many still would rather take a class in spirituality versus religion, more and more people (especially students) seem to be giving greater respect to Scripture, theology and the life of Jesus. Perhaps this admiration is why they are less interested in pop psychology and more concerned about finding an anchor of truth. The more our teaching is based on such a foundation, the more value others will ascribe to it.
I’m thankful for all of these paradigm shifts, as I believe they are key to helping us reconnect with people. The days of being the intellectual giant in the room are quickly waning, whereas the opportunities to be the listening learner are earning us credibility we lost during our modern debates. Then again, is there really anything new under the sun? Perhaps we heard this once before in the ancient letters of a former debater: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (
