Thursday, April 12, 2007

Loving the church

Pyromaniac FrankTurk is talking about apologetics:
...the goal of apologetics ought to be not just giving an account for the hope which is within us, but it also should include something akin to making myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them, and becoming all things to all people, that by all means I might save some, all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. We should be about being a blessing to people, and not just about being the kind of blessing everyone needs but nobody wants to have over for dinner for fear of being berated...
More thinking on apologetics at Bethinking and Tom Price. We need apologists who love the gospel and love the church, the local church. That might look like serving the local church.


  1. I'd be interested to know how this might look in practice for a parachurch apologist/evangelist?

    I think that this idea of apologetics as merely defence needs to be properly brought to justice too. It is also about communication, accessible and popular level, where possible.

    I don't see a line between apologetics and evangelism either. I think that is where the false understanding of apologetics as merely defending the faith or merely tackling tricky questions comes from.


  2. A blog like this one, perhaps?

  3. i think parachurch is fine (naturally) so long as it's goal is to serve the church - Turk is talking about the kind of apologist/evangelist who is detatched from the local church entirely...

    apologetics/evangelism probably shouldn't be divided.. agreed with your concern with communication at an understandable level.

    you have the opportunity to be best practice.

  4. Defence & communication, accessibility - that's why I love the book Questioning Evangelism. He calls it dialoguing the gospel, distinct from proclaiming (practically - know how to explain it, summarise it, give your testimony, etc.) and defending the gospel (practically - read up on composition of the canon, on the resurrection, etc.). But it becomes clear in reading it that this dialoguing the gospel actually is a line drawing evangelism & apologetics together like a drawstring, and isn't so much a distinct area as a means of practising both/it. I also kinda think it's in application of presup - y'know, all that questioning to get to the heart of things, but hey, I wouldn't want to start an apologetics name-calling war here...