As I’m sure is no surprise to anyone who’s spent much time reading this blog, I have an interest in apologetics, which is the rational defense of the Christian faith; as irritating as I sometimes find the attitudes of the so-called “New Atheists,” I appreciate the part they’ve played in stirring up a similar interest in a lot of my contemporaries in the church who’d never paid any attention to apologetics before. Too many Western Christians for far too long have simply conceded the rational arguments to their critics, assuming that their opponents were right, and tried to defend their faith on other grounds; but I don’t believe the atheists have the best of the argument (though I’ll certainly concede they have arguments which need to be taken seriously and respectfully), and I think it’s a good thing that more and more Christians are realizing that.That said, I think we need to be careful not to go overboard here. Apologetics has gotten a bad name in the past from people who thought they could use it as a bludgeon to beat people into the Kingdom, and we must be careful not to let enthusiasm drive us into such an attitude. We must always remember that the love of God in us should be the primary thing in us drawing people to Christ—we should know the arguments and be able to offer them appropriately, but they should be secondary.In this, as in so many things, I continue to be educated and humbled by C. S. Lewis, and particularly by this poem of his:
The Apologist’s Evening PrayerFrom all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me. Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery, lest I die.
Rob,
As a non-believer I have always been puzzled by the use of the term ‘apologetics’. To purposefully choose a word rooted in ‘apology’, is like giving up the battle before it has even begun. To me, it is the same as saying, “I know that what I believe makes no sense, and I can provide no real evidence for it…but I believe it anyway. I am sorry that it makes no sense.”
If a person is offering a rational argument for their position, no apology is necessary. I think the term ‘apologetics’ is a liability to your cause.
Your etymology is off–the former isn’t rooted in the latter. They do share a common source, though.
The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
While Wikipedia isn’t always 100%, this is accurate.
It would seem an odd derivation then to have ‘apology’ be an expression of regret (in common usage). It just goes to show how common usage can be totally detached from the root/original meaning of the word.
Just like atheist means nothing more than “without theism” or “not a theist”; common usage has turned this ‘not a thing’ into a ‘thing’. When someone asks me what my hair color is, I will start telling them that I am an ‘a-blond’.
a) atheism is a thing which defines itself in opposition to something else. When I lived in Canada, I got used to people joking that the Canadian national self-definition was “we’re not America”–but “Canadian is still a thing; and
b) it’s not weird at all; an apology is a word spoken in one’s own defense. It has evolved in English usage to mean only one type of word so spoken–namely, one spoken to defend oneself by admitting fault and expressing regret–but that’s still a type of the same thing; and given the sort of “apologies” we’ve been getting lately from public figures, one could argue that the word’s meaning is broadening out again. Whether or not you believe animals evolve, words and languages clearly do.
“we’re not America” defines nothing. That could be Mexico, or Taiwan, or Saudi Arabia, or Poland, etc. etc.. It does not mean that they OPPOSE America…just that they are NOT America.
You are right; Canadian means something as does American. But what does it mean to be NOT Canadian. If you are NOT Canadian, are you opposed to Canada/Canadians?
You are also right in the use of words often has litte relationship with their core meaning. Maybe from here on, I will use the term “healthy food” to be anything that isn’t 100% fat. Then I won’t have to worry about eating too much bacon. 🙂
True. My point is that a negative definition doesn’t mean that the thing defined isn’t a thing–it just means it’s very loosely defined. To wit, atheism is negatively defined (though a more meaningful definition–one who is not a theist therefore logically believes there is no God, which is actually a positive belief), but that doesn’t mean atheism isn’t a thing, just that it’s a loosely-defined thing.
And re bacon: you have to check this out . . .