Apologetic ethics
As usual, I was on an AOL chatroom discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with a few Roman Catholic fellows. Before I could even present the doctrine that I was going to defend, they jumped all over me and told me that the doctrine was not Biblical and totally false.
After a while of talking and justifying the doctrine from Scripture, one fellow was able to finally listen to me as I was telling him that what he thought the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was is really not the Protestant doctrine at all but the caricature of the doctrine given by the Council of Trent and the following generations. He was finally able to settle down and listen to my arguments. I bring this up because I think apologetic work has some ethical standards that should be upheld.
First, one should not presume to know the other persons doctrinal stances intricately or generally UNLESS they have learned it from authorative sources on the subject. Unfortuneately, in discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with many Roman Catholics, they have been taught that Sola Scriptura means that "all knowledge of religion is contained in the Bible". From here, they quickly ask questions that regard information that is not found in the Bible. Now, good Roman Catholic apologists will argue that since certain knowledge that is true is not found in the Bible, then the Catholic doctrine of dual source of revelation (Tradition and Scripture) is, therefore, true. However, what makes this so disturbing is that they want to argue against Sola Scriptura without first understanding the doctrine. I find this to be unethical. Not only is the misunderstood doctrine a caricature, but it is disrespectful to the person and to Christ I believe to not be fair to the other person and their beliefs. I am not saying that one necessarily agrees with the other persons beliefs. But if one is going to rightly do apologetics, one must understand what doctrines and thoughts he or she is seeking to tear down. If one is not arguing against the proper understanding of the doctrine, then they are not arguing against the doctrine at all. Instead they are "beating the air"...arguing against a straw man. I think Paul and Christ each understood those that they debated (eg. the Pharisees, philosophers, heathen beliefs, etc...) and their ministry was that much more pleasing to God since they were fair to their audiences and could proclaim the way of truth more pointedly to counter their specific beliefs.
Why we should be fair also has a psychological effect. If we are unfair in representing the other persons beliefs, they are less likely to "harden their heart" toward you and the message you want to bring to them. I believe that the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes the hearts of people as the doctrine of Effectual CAlling explicitly states. I also believe that it is in accordance with the ministry of the Spirit of God to be Christlike when discussing beliefs and engaging in apologetics. Very often people who are misunderstood in their beliefs harden themselves in their beliefs since they will sometimes believe that "their truth" is hard to accept because it is the truth.
As far as knowing sources of your opponent. This helps so much because you can both be on the same page in regards to understanding doctrinal matters in question. What doesn't help, however, is if they don't know their own sources. That is always a problem because you could have an "odd ball." As much as possible, stick to their authorative documents of their faith. If they disagree with those, then you can, obviously point out other problems like not being consistent with their professed faith. Also, knowing sources shows that you have put time and effort into really knowing their beliefs and, hence, where they are coming from.
Another point is to be nice. I don't want to merely sound like the movie Road House here and bouncer ethics, but this is so important. Apologetics is prime ground for emotions to get loose. When this happens and argumentation begins to sound like this: "I can see now that Christ is not in you..." or "you need to repent for your sins now" or "you are so warped in your thinking..." These are not conducive to apologetics MINISTRY. All they serve to do is attack the person who probably has just revealed that he or she does not have the ability to argue against your argument so they would just attack you. Do not fall into this trap. From here, "apologetics" turn into a matters of whits and who is able to use the condemnatory langauge of the Bible to sound better.
Finally, don't say what you don't know. Don't guess and don't assume. It is not a sin to admit ignorance of certain matters. Rather, it is wisdom to recognize ones own intellectual boundaries and not exceed them. It is ok to admit that you will research the matter more in depth and get back to the person if you can. Then, when you are informed you can resume conversation. This also creates the need for preparation on the part of the apologist. If you want to avoid putting off conversations for later times, then "study to show thyself approved". Study, study, study. One cannot overemphasize how important this is. Apologetics is WORK.
These apologetic ethics are not meant to be exhaustive in any means. They are simply good principles that I have learned and live by as I have gained experience talking to other faiths about their beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope they can help you out in your apologetic encounters as they have mine. Apologetics to the glory of God.
After a while of talking and justifying the doctrine from Scripture, one fellow was able to finally listen to me as I was telling him that what he thought the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was is really not the Protestant doctrine at all but the caricature of the doctrine given by the Council of Trent and the following generations. He was finally able to settle down and listen to my arguments. I bring this up because I think apologetic work has some ethical standards that should be upheld.
First, one should not presume to know the other persons doctrinal stances intricately or generally UNLESS they have learned it from authorative sources on the subject. Unfortuneately, in discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with many Roman Catholics, they have been taught that Sola Scriptura means that "all knowledge of religion is contained in the Bible". From here, they quickly ask questions that regard information that is not found in the Bible. Now, good Roman Catholic apologists will argue that since certain knowledge that is true is not found in the Bible, then the Catholic doctrine of dual source of revelation (Tradition and Scripture) is, therefore, true. However, what makes this so disturbing is that they want to argue against Sola Scriptura without first understanding the doctrine. I find this to be unethical. Not only is the misunderstood doctrine a caricature, but it is disrespectful to the person and to Christ I believe to not be fair to the other person and their beliefs. I am not saying that one necessarily agrees with the other persons beliefs. But if one is going to rightly do apologetics, one must understand what doctrines and thoughts he or she is seeking to tear down. If one is not arguing against the proper understanding of the doctrine, then they are not arguing against the doctrine at all. Instead they are "beating the air"...arguing against a straw man. I think Paul and Christ each understood those that they debated (eg. the Pharisees, philosophers, heathen beliefs, etc...) and their ministry was that much more pleasing to God since they were fair to their audiences and could proclaim the way of truth more pointedly to counter their specific beliefs.
Why we should be fair also has a psychological effect. If we are unfair in representing the other persons beliefs, they are less likely to "harden their heart" toward you and the message you want to bring to them. I believe that the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes the hearts of people as the doctrine of Effectual CAlling explicitly states. I also believe that it is in accordance with the ministry of the Spirit of God to be Christlike when discussing beliefs and engaging in apologetics. Very often people who are misunderstood in their beliefs harden themselves in their beliefs since they will sometimes believe that "their truth" is hard to accept because it is the truth.
As far as knowing sources of your opponent. This helps so much because you can both be on the same page in regards to understanding doctrinal matters in question. What doesn't help, however, is if they don't know their own sources. That is always a problem because you could have an "odd ball." As much as possible, stick to their authorative documents of their faith. If they disagree with those, then you can, obviously point out other problems like not being consistent with their professed faith. Also, knowing sources shows that you have put time and effort into really knowing their beliefs and, hence, where they are coming from.
Another point is to be nice. I don't want to merely sound like the movie Road House here and bouncer ethics, but this is so important. Apologetics is prime ground for emotions to get loose. When this happens and argumentation begins to sound like this: "I can see now that Christ is not in you..." or "you need to repent for your sins now" or "you are so warped in your thinking..." These are not conducive to apologetics MINISTRY. All they serve to do is attack the person who probably has just revealed that he or she does not have the ability to argue against your argument so they would just attack you. Do not fall into this trap. From here, "apologetics" turn into a matters of whits and who is able to use the condemnatory langauge of the Bible to sound better.
Finally, don't say what you don't know. Don't guess and don't assume. It is not a sin to admit ignorance of certain matters. Rather, it is wisdom to recognize ones own intellectual boundaries and not exceed them. It is ok to admit that you will research the matter more in depth and get back to the person if you can. Then, when you are informed you can resume conversation. This also creates the need for preparation on the part of the apologist. If you want to avoid putting off conversations for later times, then "study to show thyself approved". Study, study, study. One cannot overemphasize how important this is. Apologetics is WORK.
These apologetic ethics are not meant to be exhaustive in any means. They are simply good principles that I have learned and live by as I have gained experience talking to other faiths about their beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope they can help you out in your apologetic encounters as they have mine. Apologetics to the glory of God.
posted by prchdaword at 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home