Apologetics to the Glory of God:
Sharing the Gospel in a Post Modern World

Preamble

Privilege of interacting with some – heart of this body.

I am not a preacher – possibly a teacher. I do not teach dogma or give rules. In most cases I leave the conclusion open to my audience. My desire is to see the Christian man and woman think. Unfortunately this holy attribute seems to have gone lost from amongst most Christian communities. [Tradition and charismatic - tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine that comes their way].

The title I have given to my topic, “Apologetics to the Glory of God:
Sharing the Gospel in a Post Modern World”, might seen rather intimidating to some initially but I am confident that we all will soon realise how vital this area is to our fulfilling of the Great Commission.

Challenging to both of us.

Right at the onset I must emphasize I am by no means an ‘expert’ in the field I am about to cover. I can either wait until I am 99 to gain a bit more experience or, alternatively, I can share with people like you now, and together, we can wrestle through the various issues that will confront us.

It was Isaac Newton who said: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. I am truly indebted to many great men of God who have inspired me and taught me through their writings. In most cases, it is as if I had been sitting at their feet and learning from them.

Me of the caliber of Francis Schaeffer, the greatest Christina thinker of the 20th Century; Ravi Zacharias, who many believe is the contemporary to Dr Schaeffer. Prof JP Moreland, who I battle to keep up with at the best of times, yet has inspired me greatly in that the passion that resides within me is not of man but of God. John Macarthur, whom most of you know, has also played a major role in my understanding of many of the concepts we will be discussing.

Introduction

Objective: Defining the subject – stating the objective – this week

Teaching: “Getting our hands dirty” - next week

How do we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the 21st Century man and woman? How do you speak about “accepting Christ as Saviour” to the man and woman that works with you, plays sport with you, socializes with you, whose children go to the same school as your children?

At the outset this seems a simple enough question, but as we examine its answer we will realise that there are implication that few Christians have really considered.

When it comes to what and how church is there are as many opinions as there are members but one thing I know that if any group wish to call themselves a church they must be relevant to their society. This is so evident in Jesus’ teaching, the book of Acts and throughout the epistles.

[And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I am definitely not preaching Liberal Theology – in fact quite the opposite:

Liberal Theology sees Jesus as the model sociological example (their definition of a Christian) and that man’s problem is his society and environment. Man, according to Liberal Theology, is basically good.
I preach Jesus as the Son of God, 100% God, 100% man. Man’s problem is sin and his subsequent separation from God.]

Most of us understand the implications of going out to “Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. Somehow, it seems to me, we have placed the emphasis on the “uttermost parts of the earth and in the process have forgotten about “Jerusalem” – the men and women that we, as normal people, come into contact with every day.

The local church, as a corporate body, will have its outreaches, its evangelical campaigns and its mission programs. This is an essential function but it is will only really be relevant when it touches the lives of its community and that ultimately boils down to the individual – you and I!

François shared with me that this church agrees that very little impact is made upon society from within a “four walled church” church. It is in the workplace, the sports field, the various academic institutions and within our everyday social environment where the real contact is made.

So how do we make this ‘real contact’ viable? How do we in our everyday communication transcend the thinking of our non-Christian associates and effectively present them with the Gospel?

These men and women might have much in common with us when it comes to general issues such as work, play, politics, sport, etc., But when we get onto the real issues of life - God, the universe, the meaning of life, morals, the dilemma of man, etc. – We find it is at this point where we depart radically in our views.

When most of us started out, armed with the Bible in one hand and a handful of tracts in the other, we were given relatively simple guidelines on how to communicate the Gospel. Yet today we find these simple steps just do not work anymore. The mere fact, as I am sure some have discovered, the concepts of God, the Bible, Heaven and Hell, good and evil have changed drastically!

Yet we are told that the Gospel is simple – you only need to present it (“to sow the seed”) and the Holy Spirit does the rest! It is our lives that bear testimony. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, the gospel is simple, but modern man is highly complicated in his thinking and especially in his worldview.
For sure, we are utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit but Scripture makes it very clear that we need to be sharp, effective instruments in His hands. We are continually exhorted to practice diligence in all that we do. We must know what preaching the simple gospel means in our changing, complex, 21st Century world.
We are called to be light and salt. Our lives need to be that light that attracts people to us. But then the salt need to administered and that does not happen automatically. When they ask questions you need to answer them intelligently.

Let me qualify what I have just said by defining the concept of “lost”:

When we say a person is lost, we usually think evangelically lost, that he or she is a sinner and needs to accept Christ as Saviour. This is perfectly true but we need to understand that the unbeliever today does not know he is lost evangelically. How could he? He does not believe there is a right or wrong, he does not believe there is a God – most people do not even understand the concept of God, God to them is ‘god’. There are no absolutes and therefore there is no reason that they think of themselves as sinners. Few believe in guilt anymore. There is only “sickness”, or “guilt feelings”, or “sociological non-conformity”. True guilt is a concept unbeknown to modern man.

How much meaning does our talking about accepting “Christ as Saviour” have for such a person?

But there is an answer. Modern man has a “second sense” of being lost which is valid to both the message of the Gospel and his thinking – a common point of departure. He is without meaning in the world, without purpose, without morals, no final principles and no final answers for anything. Even though it would most probably take some prompting (which we will discuss next wee) modern man knows he is lost in this way. The Bible makes plain that indeed man is lost in both senses – lost evangelically; but without God, he is lost in the modern sense as well.

So our starting point is from this “lostness” – a lostness that is explained by the existence of a Creator. Christianity does not begin with “accept Christ as Saviour”. Christianity begins with “In the beginning God”. Once that answer is driven home only then are we ready to explain the second lostness and the answer, which is in the death, resurrection and present day ministry of Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther made a profound statement that has such relevance to evangelical Christianity today:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of truth of God except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved”.

My friends, if we do not understand our world today and know how to deal with it we are not confessing Christ we are only professing Him. It is at this point that I move into what I have termed, “Practical Apologetics”.

Defining the Terms:

Apologetics

Before I get stuck into the real nitty-gritty I would like to define two concepts. These two concepts form the crux of the teaching and therefore will provide clarity and some framework for us to operate in. Also, hopefully, it will do away with some of the wrong connotations we have attached to them. Let’s discuss the term “apologetics” and the term philosophy:

Abraham Kuyper, pastor, theologian and later Prime Minister of the Netherlands, made this important statement in 1891: “There is no doubt Christianity is imperiled by great and serious dangers. Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat……………. In this struggle Apologetics have advanced us not one single step”.

Today many Christians think the same. Yet there are many out there, including myself, who disagree. That is why I use the term, “Practical Apologetics” to distinguished it from an academic subject that has no use to anybody.

Some might think Apologetics is an extension of a NASA space program project following on the heels of Apollo Apollo II and I. Except for the fact that we are dealing with the ‘things above’ there is no resemblance.

Others, who have had some theological exposure, will recognize the subject as one that is often avoided like the plague. At least this was the case during my academics. I did not think it was necessary to prove or defend the Bible. A simple reading of Josh McDowell’s, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was more than ample for me. To be subjected to the gathering of vast amounts of information to prove that the Bible is true seemed like a total waste of time. To be subjected to lectures in Documentary Hypothesis, Histography, Form and Text Criticism was just not on.

To me there are certain fundamental truths (or presuppositions) that I accept with question. The reality of a personal, infinite, triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ (100% man and 100% God), the work and personhood of the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of the Bible were but a few. As far as I was concerned, any individual who cannot accept these truths cannot be called a Christian. Why then do I have to prove what I already know?

I was making one fundamental mistake. Practical Apologetics is not about me; it is not even about the Christian in general, it’s about the world out there that needs Jesus Christ.

[1 Peter 3:15].

The word ‘defense’ or ‘give an answer’ is the Greek word apologian and it means apology. Not the modern English meaning of saying I am sorry, but the older meaning – to give the reason for. I am telling you why I am a Christian and why I believe the way I do.

So therefore I define Apologetics as comprising of three essential elements:

Proof – giving a rational basis for my Christianity – Explaining my Christianity using terminology that my listener understands (next week: communication).
Defence – dealing with reasonable objections people have to the Christian message. Not just giving some pat answer, hoping that he will go away! Or alternatively, giving such a theologically laden answer that not even we understand.

CS Lewis remarked that unless a complicated argument could be simplified to appeal to the average person, the chances are that the one doing the explaining does not understand either.

Offence – uncovering the foolishness’ of the non-Christian thought. We will deal with this in greater detail next week.

I love what Ravi Zacharias said: “God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone”

Campus Crusade has been involved on university campuses the world over for longer than I know. They have been responsible for many fine evangelical and outreach programs throughout the years. It is no coincidence they are now utilizing the likes of Prof J P Moreland to teach them the essentials of Apologetics.

Apologetics then, or at least the Apologetics I teach, is very simply, how to preach the gospel in a post-modern world.

!! Philosophy

It would not do justice to our teaching if I did not bring the term, ‘Philosophy’ into our context. As Christian we have attached certain connotation to the concept that unfortunately has robbed the Christian message of an essential element.

First, philosophy and religion deal with the same basic questions. Christians, and especially evangelical Christians, have tended to forget this. Philosophy and religion do not deal with different questions, though they give different answers and use different terms. We will be discussing these fundamental questions next week

A fine example in history is that of the Reformation and the Renaissance [explain].

Wolfaart Panneberg, in his book, “Basic Questions in Theology” makes this profound statement:

“In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God”.

The second general observation concerns the two meanings of the word philosophy, which must be kept completely separate if we are to avoid confusion:

The first meaning is a discipline, an academic subject. That is what we usually think of as philosophy: a highly technical study that few people pursue. In this sense, few people are philosophers.
But there is a second meaning that we must not miss if we are going to understand the problem of preaching the gospel in our modern world. Philosophy also means a person s worldview. In this sense, all people are philosophers, for all people have a worldview. This is as true of the squatter in the bush somewhere as it is of the philosopher in the university.

Christians have tended to despise the concept of philosophy. This has been one of the weaknesses of evangelical, orthodox Christianity - we have been proud in despising philosophy, and we have been exceedingly proud in despising the intellect. Our Bible schools and theological institutions hardly ever relate their theology to philosophy, and specifically to the current philosophy. Thus, students go out not knowing how to relate Christianity to the surrounding worldview.

It is not that they we not know the answers. My observation is that we do not know the questions.

In fact, philosophy is universal in scope. No man or woman can live without a worldview; therefore we are all philosophers.

Staying with CS Lewis, and I quote: “everyone in life has a philosophy – the only question is whether it is a good one”.

! Conclusion

Several years ago, Encyclopedia Britannica published a fifty-five-volume series entitled, “The Great Books of the Western World”. Mortimer Adler, a noted philosopher and legal scholar, was co-editor for this series, which marshaled the eminent thinkers of the western world and their writings on the most important ideas that have been studied and investigated over the centuries. This included ideas in law, science, philosophy, psychology, history and theology that have shaped the minds and destinies of people. When Mr. Adler was asked by a reviewer why the longest essay in this entire volume was that on God he replied: “Because more consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question”.

Philosophers through the centuries have realised that deep within each human being reside four human distinctives:

A sense of meaning
Religious awareness
Concern about death, and
A need to know and understand.

When man’s starting point is anything other than the Holy Spirit saturated, unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ he will end up in confusion and despair.

You and I, as normal, day-to-day men and women, are the only ones who can truly share the gospel in a post-modern world. We are the only ones that demonstrate true Apologetics to the glory of God.