The Art of War in Apologetics

- By Mark McFall & Brian Lawson

Has the God of the Bible declared war? If so, are there any rules of engagement for the troops? We think the answer is "yes" on both counts. But let us impress upon you that this war we speak of is not a war to be waged with guns, bombs, swords, or anything that would wound or kill a physical body. Rather, we are talking about God’s desire to connect with hostile human hearts through war waged by the communication of ideas to gain every heart as territory that belongs to Him. In our opinion, God has hand picked certain individuals for the difficult task of engagement, believing that they are called to engage this conflict according to a behavioral standard of "courtesy and respect" (1 Peter 3:16, tr. NJB). Yes, for Christian apologists, there is a type of convention (rule of war) that must be adhered to whether or not opponents are willing to hold to the same standard of human relations.

The Bible further identifies this standard as "speaking the truth in love" in a manner that reflects patience and kindness minus arrogance and provocation (Ephesians 4:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:1-7). We believe that this standard applies to situations where believers attempt to communicate in any environment. Colossians 4:5-6 says:

"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." (NASU)

This loving, respectful, and gracious standard sounds easy until venturing out of a comfortable environment. Apologists and evangelists often encounter aggression borne out of hate for the message of God’s concern. This is, at times, followed up with insults toward the believer and what he or she believes. At that point, the advice to be loving, kind, or even respectful, seems like the recommendation of someone who never faced any "real" hostile situation. It is at such a point that a Christian needs to realize that the advice to adhere to a standard of love and respect in the face of adversity can, at the very least, set the pace for meaningful dialog in other venues.

For those of us who desire to learn from Jesus, His example of not reviling or uttering threats during extreme affliction sets a high standard for us to follow (1 Peter 2:21-23). This should cause those who find themselves at odds with this type of self control to rethink matters. In no case are we given liberty to act out in a retaliatory or provocative manner (Matt. 5:39). There is nothing about apologetics, and nothing about confronting opponents of Christianity that calls us to go beyond the limits Jesus role modeled. We believe there are no circumstances severe enough to warrant a negative approach, and most certainly not on a continual basis. Jesus’ example is consistent through the most severe opposition.

Having said that, we’re certainly not implying that Christians can't be as hard-hitting as skeptics. In the Bible there are plenty of examples of hard-hitting language, several of which are demonstrated by Jesus Himself. But with such examples, we also see that they do not overstep the kind of restraint we’ve been talking about thus far. Words and behaviors are to be controlled, so they attack what needs to be attacked, and achieve what needs to be achieved. The writer of 2 Timothy touches on this when he identifies that scripture is useful for the purposes of "teaching," "rebuke," "correction," and "training" (vs. 3:16-17). Given the high ethical principles encouraged in the Bible, nothing short of descent behavior is expected.

True, Paul could easily be interpreted as acting unkind or unloving throughout much of his epistle to the Galatians. We read that he opposed Peter to his face, and that he considered the actions of his brother apostle to be condemnable (Gal 2:11). In his attempt to correct a particular group of their error, Paul makes a rather vivid statement to those whose idea of true righteousness was focused on male private parts for circumcision. The New International Version of the Bible interprets Paul as saying:

"As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves" (Gal. 5:12).

That sort of language seems a bit over the line, but there was a purpose in using those words, and it certainly made a point about the whole error of the circumcision group of which Paul was writing in response to. He was hard-hitting because he was involved in war – a war that called for a type of rebuke that would get the attention not only of those who taught that circumcision was a requirement in the new covenant, but also of those who were influenced by such teachers.

Jesus was also hard-hitting with those He was communicating with. He accused His disciples of having "little faith" (Matt 16:8), even of representing Satan on one occasion (Matt 16:23). He was hard-hitting with the Pharisees and the religious leaders of His day who sought to trap him with questions: because they loved to be honored on a level that was superior to others. Jesus called them "hypocrites," "fools," and "blind-men" (Matt 23). When they challenged His wisdom, He humiliated them with questions that they were afraid, or unable, to answer (Matt 21:24-27; 22:41-46). Further, the Gospels show that Jesus never intended to insult anyone; rather, He spoke in a manner that often brought conviction upon men so that repentance consumed their mind.

Though Christian apologists are the focus of this article, we realize there is something here of mutual interest among people of various ideologies. Generally speaking, individuals who follow other religious texts are encouraged to have a high regard for human relations as well (Confucianism, Analects 4.3-4; Jainism, Vitaragastava 14.5; Buddhism, Dhammapada 3-5; Islam, Qu’an 60.7, 41.34-35; Taoism, Tao Te Ching 49, 63; etc.). There are even people within the secular community attempting to set a similar standard. Dan Barker, a popular contemporary Atheist, is one such skeptic calling for this higher standard of conduct:

"Ridicule is rarely effective in changing someone's mind. No one likes to be laughed at. No one wants to be told they are a loser. How do you respond to ridicule? Combativeness creates enemies. The purpose of an evangelistic atheist should be to make a friend. To win them over to the reasonableness of freethought. You can't browbeat a person into friendship. "Onward, Atheist Soldiers" is the opposite of freethought. Friendship is only attained by attraction. The only way to attract someone is by being attractive. If you want to win someone to your side, then treat them like a friend. Respect who they are and where they are at this stage of their life. Show them that freethinkers are courteous and tolerant. You may not become bosom buddies, but you can look into the future and envision a respectful, freethinking friendship. Isn't that what we ultimately want?" (Freethought Today www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/ evangel.html)

All of this should tell Christians that people of many backgrounds appreciate and respect those who show kindness and respect to others. It is likely that most do not appreciate nor admire those who approach discussions with a sour attitude and a disregard for the people that they are communicating with.

Unfortunately, as everybody knows, the temptation to cross the line is great when one is confronted with abusive behavior. When some Christians continue to cross the line, the love that Jesus is known to have for the hostile heart is compromised. For that reason, it is imperative that we act in the same manner of love role modeled in Jesus. To reiterate, this doesn’t mean that we can’t be hard-hitting, or that we can’t label someone with a term that aptly describes the error of that person. But we are called to be controlled enough to hit as hard as we can in the right place – not to belittle someone, but to convince them of what we believe to be true – attacking the error and not the person.

The Art of War in Apologetics is summed up in behavior that reflects principles of respect and kindness. Any Christian ought to know that God’s will is discovered through study, meditation, and prayer. In as much as we’ve offered some insight here, the best suggestion that we can make is that a Christian apologist be a person constantly in tune with God’s desires. Such attentiveness will help the soldier of Christ know how and when to "engage" in conflict with words and deeds that please the God who calls us to serve Him.

-----Postscript verses-----