ἀπολογία (apología): “speaking in defense”; the act of defending a system of beliefs or claims (often in the context of religion) through rational discourse and argumentation.

Living in a cosmopolitan country, encountering people of diverse cultures and belief systems is a norm where I live. Although we rarely talk about our beliefs, occasionally the topic of conversation shifts towards religion, and it is very interesting to see how people of different backgrounds practice their faith. All in all, these conversations have remained wholesome and respectful for all, at least within my social circle.

But not everywhere does such peace and respect exist. Religion and contrasting cultures have become a polarizing topic in recent years, and several countries have started adopting a more anti-immigration stance, especially towards foreigners of different backgrounds and nationalities. Particularly in the States, religious fervor is at an all-time high, especially among fundamentalist and evangelical groups pushing to enshrine Christianity into a state/national-level religion. This fervor is often accompanied by an equally strong desire to “defend the faith” in some capacity, manifesting via the abundance of apologetic articles and videos online.

I first heard about Christian apologetics shortly after I accepted Christ from a neighbor whom I used to dance with. Back then, hearing from him what apologetics was all about was extremely intriguing to my younger self. How cool is it for one to be able to rationally use science, logic and empirical arguments to rationalize my faith!

That was over five years ago. Now, with an entire PhD and years of scientific inquiry behind me, I’m so glad I didn’t.

Why?

The scholarly process of inquiry

Anyone who has engaged with the scientific method should be familiar with the process of scientific inquiry. We start off with a set of observations, construct a research question of interest, propose a series of hypotheses and test them against all the evidence accessible to us to make an informed judgment. If the evidence supports our hypothesis, it doesn’t necessarily mean that our hypothesis is right; it simply means there is greater credence to our claim. However, if enough evidence goes against our hypothesis, our claims should be rejected in favor of a different theory or conjecture. In other words, the scientific method is built on the continuous process of trying to falsify the claims we propose. If a claim survives enough testing, it is deemed able to stand up to scrutiny and gets a sticker of approval in the truth department.

Now compare that with the practice of apologetics. Apologetics start off with a set of presupposed beliefs or tenets to defend (hence the root word apologia, see above). Arguments are constructed using philosophy, logic and archaeological evidence to support such a claim, or to cast doubt on opposing arguments that go against these presuppositions. In the former, the conclusion to the inquiry can go both ways, depending on which side the evidence falls on. In the latter, the conclusion is presupposed and any evidence to the contrary is at best ignored or reconciled; at worst bent and twisted to support the presupposition.

All believers need to defend their faith…or do they?

Paul in some ways qualified as an apologist, as he was defending his new interpretation of the purpose of the Law against his Jewish contemporaries (e.g. letter to the Galatians). In 1 Peter 3:15, the author seems to imply that all believers should have sorted out a defense of their own for their faith. Doesn’t this mean that apologetics is expected of all believers?  

but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, (1 Peter 3:15 NRSVUE).

I suppose if an apologist produces rigorous arguments for his/her position and is gracious enough to concede in the face of contradicting evidence, that could work as an honest line of inquiry. However, from my experience, I almost never see that happening. Take for example the doctrine of inerrancy that fundamentalists often espouse – the Bible cannot have any contradictions or mistakes whatsoever. To defend such a claim in the face of glaring counter-evidence such as the identify of the High Priest who helped David (Mark 2:26 – Abiathar; 1 Sam 21 – Ahimelech), the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2 – no such census is known to exist), differences in the nativity account after Jesus’s birth (Luke 2 – remains in Jerusalem vs. Matt 3 – escape to Egypt) and differences in eschatology (the synoptic gospels and 1 Thess 4 – soon, within the lifetime of the early followers; 2 Thess 2 – not until a “man of lawlessness” is defeated, and aren’t we still here?) requires some serious mental gymnastics, reinterpretation maneuvers and in Dr. Dan McClellan’s words “ginning up the tiniest sliver of not impossible” to reconcile every part and detail of Scripture. And all this has yet to include the problem of forgery in the bible – something most believers aren’t willing to concede nowadays even those the phenomenon has been known for over half a century by critical scholarship.

And herein lies the problem of the apologetics’ approach – the extreme reluctance to show intellectual humility in the face of evidence to the contrary. The goalpost has shifted from investigating the contextual meanings behind the stories in the bible, to using those stories to fit a presupposed image of who God is, what He does and how He interacts with Mankind. So many man-hours could have been used to productively investigate ancient texts and belief systems to understand how the ancient authors viewed God in their own circumstances and times. Instead, apologists have spent entire careers deriving the most implausible of circumstances to harmonize and smooth out even the ugliest parts of the Bible. Is that really the defense that the author of Peter was expecting out of believers? To this end, it has become extremely annoying these days to google anything scripturally related while sieving out many of these terrible apologetic takes.

To me, the apologetic approach reeks of dishonesty and intellectual shenanigans. As a researcher in my own right, I would like to think the Lord requires me to uphold myself to a high standard of integrity and honesty in my study. And if this was true of my day job, why wouldn’t it be true when I study the bible as well?

Doing honest biblical study and yet still believe

Is there any point in apologetics then (in a Christian context)? Right now, I can’t imagine a single use case. My main beef with apologetics is its entire premise of, as Dr. Richard Miller puts it, “having the answers even before knowing the questions”. If a supposed “truth” is indeed true in nature, I would expect to be able to arrive at the same conclusion naturally using the historical method without presupposing anything about God or the nature of the text. Furthermore, I would expect anyone to be able to arrive at the same conclusion, whether they are a believer, a muslim or an atheist. The fact that many fundamental “truth” claims don’t live up to scrutiny from the text and historical evidence should give us pause for thought – are we letting the bible speak for itself, or are we letting many of our post-biblical precognitions get the better of us? If we are to truly form a defense for our faith, all Christians should, at the very least, be informed about the origins of our beliefs and doctrines so that we are prepared when others ask. When were they first proposed, and by who? Did others disagree? What other competing interpretations were there at the time? Who won and how?

I promise you’ll be surprised at what you’ll find.

Let it be clear. I am still a believer (even if I do appear to sound like an apostate in this post). As are many others before me that have spent their entire lives dedicated to the critical scholarship of the most important and beloved piece of literature in Mankind’s history. But at the same time, I want to know the truth more than anything – what did people think of God from past till present, and what can we take away from these interactions and perspectives to inform us of who God is and how to live God-pleasing lives? And to get to that truth, we must let the bible speak on its own terms and see how the text corresponds with what we know about the past. Most of us probably don’t have the resources to do all of that. That is where unapologetic critical scholarship comes in – scholars who can examine every evidence available to us fully to reach an honest judgement free from precognitions. Not the ones who refuse to admit that the biblical authors could be wrong or fraudulent, or that they must agree with one another at any cost.     

Apologies to the apologetics. Now kindly please get out of my algorithm. Thank you.