Tactics: the worst mistake a Christian can make when doing apologetics

I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

So, this is just an advice post for doing apologetics.

Here are three situations I’ve run into while doing apologetics in the last month.

First situation. I was talking with a lady who is an atheist. I had a copy of “God’s Crime Scene” in my hand, and she asked me about it. I told her that it was a book written by the guy who solved the homicide case that I asked her to watch on Dateline. She remembered – it was the two-hour special on the woman who was killed with a garrotte. She pointed at the book and said “what’s in it?” I said, it has 8 pieces of evidence that fit better with a theistic worldview than with an atheistic one, and some of them scientific. Her reply to me was – literally – “which denomination do you want me to join?”

Second situation. I was talking with a friend of mine who teaches in a Catholic school. She was telling that she got the opportunity to talk to her students about God, and found out that some of them were not even theists, and many of them had questions. So she asked them for questions and got a list. The list included many hard cases, like “what about the Bible and slavery” and “why do Christians oppose gay marriage?” and so on.

Third situation. Talking to a grad student about God’s existence. I’m laying out my scientific arguments for her, holding up the peer-reviewed papers for each discovery. I get to the Doug Axe paper on protein folding probabilities, and she holds up her hand. One question: “Am I going to Hell?”

So think about those three situations. In each case, the opponent is trying to reject Christianity by jumping way, way ahead to the very end of the process. When you do Christian apologetics, you do not take the bait and jump to the end of the process dealing with nitty gritty details until you have made your case for the core of the Christian worldview using your strongest evidence. Let me explain.

So, your strongest evidence as a Christian are the scientific arguments, along with the moral argument. Those would include (for starters) the following:

  1. kalam cosmological argument
  2. cosmic fine-tuning
  3. galactic and stellar habitability
  4. origin of life / DNA
  5. molecular machines / irreducible complexity
  6. the moral argument

The problem I am seeing today is that atheists are rejecting discussions about evidence because they think that all we are interested in is getting them to become Christians. Well, yes. I want you to become a Christian. But I know perfectly well what that entails – it entails a change of life priorities. Both of the women I spoke to are living with their boyfriends, and the kids in the Catholic school just want to have fun. None of them wants to believe in a God who will require self-denial, self-control, and self-sacrifice. Nobody wants God to be in that leader position in their lives. Christianity is 100% reversed from today’s me-first, fun-seeking, thrill-seeking, fear-of-missing-out travel spirit of the age.

So, how to answer all these late-game questions? The answer is simple. You don’t answer any late-game questions until the person you are talking with accounts for the widely-accepted data in your list. These are things that have got to be accepted before any discussion about minor issues like one angel vs two angels at the empty tomb can occur. When we discuss all the basic issues where the evidence is the strongest, then we can go on to discuss issues where the evidence is debatable, then finally, in the last bits before the end, we can discuss these other kinds of questions.

How to explain why this process must be followed to the person who asks specific questions about minor issues? Simple. You explain that your goal is not to get them to become a Christian right now. That you want to let them believe anything thing they want. That’s right. They can believe anything they want to believe. As long as what they believe is consistent with the evidence. And what I am going to do is give them the evidence, and then they can believe whatever they want – so long as it’s consistent with the evidence.

So, for example, I’m going to tell them 3 pieces of evidence for a cosmic beginning of the universe: the expanding universe (redshift), the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the light element abundances. That’s mainstream science that shows that the universe came into being out of nothing, a finite time in the past. And I will charge them not to believe in any religion that assumes that the universe has always been here. For example, Mormonism is ruled out, they believe in eternally existing matter. See how that works? Hey, Ms. Atheist. You can believe anything you want. As long as what you believe is consistent with the evidence. 

I think this approach of not letting them rush you to the end at the beginning is important for two reasons. First, we can get our foot in the door to talk about things that are interesting to everyone, in a non-stressed environment. Everyone can talk about evidence comfortably. Second, we show that we hold our beliefs because we are simply letting evidence set boundaries for us on what we are allowed to believe. We can’t believe not-Christianity, because not-Christianity is not consistent with the evidence. And you start with the most well-supported evidence, and eliminate worldviews that are falsified by the most well-supported evidence. Atheism actually gets falsified pretty quickly, because of the scientific evidence.

So, that’s my advice. Had a friend of mine named William try this out about a week ago. It went down like this:

William to me:

This guy I know messaged me and bragged for a while about how easy he can dismantle Christianity. He said: “present the gospel to me as you understand it. I’ll simply ask questions to demonstrate it is not worth your belief.”

WK to William:

First of all, he isn’t allowed to just sit there and poke holes in your case, he has to present a positive case for atheism. Second, don’t discuss Christianity with him at all until you first discuss the evidence for theism – start with the good scientific evidence.

And William wrote this to his friend:

The way I’m wired is that I process all competing theories and go with the best one. By doing a comparative analysis of worldviews I find that Christian theology easily explains the most about the world I find myself living in.

I’m pretty sure that a God of some sort exists because of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine tuning in physics. From there I find it quite intuitive that if a God went through the trouble of creating and tuning a universe for life that this God likely has some sort of interest in it and has revealed Himself to humanity in some way.

From there I can look at the major world religions and compare them to see which one explains the past and the present the best. Christianity easily comes out on top.

And then a few days later, I got this from William:

I finally got the agnostic to tell me what he thinks about origin and fine tuning. When I started pointing out that his views were unscientific, he blew a gasket, called me dishonest and told me he didn’t want to discuss anything further.

And that’s where you want to be. Cut off all discussions where the challenger tries to jump to the end and get you to debate the very last steps of your case. Present the strongest evidence for your core claims, and get him to account for this evidence within his own worldview. Lead the discussion with public, testable evidence. All warfare depends on picking the terrain, weapons and tactics that allow you to match your strength against your opponent’s weakness.

15 thoughts on “Tactics: the worst mistake a Christian can make when doing apologetics”

  1. Reblogged this on Brandon J. Adams and commented:
    Good solution for all the “gotcha” arguments that are often presented in opposition to Christianity. If you can achieve the existence and sovereignty of God, a lot of tough issues fall into place. Let us pray that the Spirit moves amongst our friends and loved ones, for only he saves in the end.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Although I love the tactics of J.Warner Wallace and Frank Turek, I think the questions that you presented needed to be handled from the viewpoint of Ravi and company. Whereas you are answering the person and not the question.
    1) “What Denomination do you want me to join?” – She is asking why are there so many different viewpoints in Christianity. To this you should have answered that unity in belief does not require uniformity in expression of that belief.
    2) “Slavery in the Bible, and Gay marriage”- Questions of slavery in the Bible generally stem from a lack of knowledge of the difference between slavery and indentured servitude. There are many verses that show God’s condemnation of what we currently know as slavery. When it comes to Gay marriage you would have to address God’s purpose for man and woman. You could also address how gay marriage also goes against Darwinian evolution (propagation of a species).
    3) Will I go to Hell? – This person has a question of salvation and redemption that would best be handled by presenting the moral law and the redemption of Christ (Ray Comfort style)
    Presenting scientific evidence is great when dealing with a hostile audience but you have to tailor your apologetics to the audience. By restricting your tactics to simply scientific evidence you have totally dismissed those who have deeper concerns leaving them with the impression that you don’t care or that you don’t have a reasonable answer to their concern. Normally the real question is buried under the surface. The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t help the girl who will ask “will I go to Hell?” after she realizes that she been lied to by so many and that aborting her baby really was murder.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Your approach is exactly what I was arguing against in the post. You would take the bait, and I wouldn’t. I don’t think highly of Ravi Zacharias as an apologist or as a Christian thinker. I think he’s waaaaaayyyyyy overhyped, and he participates in that by misrepresenting his credentials.


      1. I find it interesting that you use the word bait. It is a very telling word. So my question to you is; is winning the argument more important than winning a soul?


        1. I have been doing apologetics long enough to know why these objections about minor issues are thrown out. They are designed to put the Christian on the defensive. When I focus on mainstream science, that puts the atheist on the defensive. The goal here is to be effective by focusing on the important things first.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Following rules like you stated allows you to find those that are honestly discussing ( they are worth sharing with) and those that are just trolls. ( in life or online). Only spend time talking to people that honestly want the truth and ignore those that want to justify the sin

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes, that’s what this is about. Detecting people who are sincerely seeking the truth from those who want to just throw out objections. I’m not going to talk about Hell with someone who doesn’t accept a Creator and Designer. There is a flow to these discussions that has to be adhered to.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I appreciate your rigorous evidence based approach. I wonder why god would make the evidence for his existence so intellectually challenging and then dispense intelligence in such a way that fairly half of his children would be unlikely to grasp the evidence you layout. If not half, surely 10-20% of people lack the intellectual fortitude to take on these kind of scientific arguments.

    Why would god so thoroughly obscure his existence and then not provide the intellectual power to understand the evidence?

    Of course, perhaps I deeply underestimate the capacity of low intelligence people, but I don’t think so.


    1. It’s only in the last 100-150 years that naturalistic theories about an eternal universe or biological evolution became widespread. The multiverse is just decades old. You only need to use these evidences if you are dealing with people who are offering the naturalistic theories as alternatives to God. Except the moral argument, the moral argument is for everyone, at all times and in all places. What you use depends on your audience. My audience is people with STEM graduate degrees (at work) and graduate students (at the university). I use what I have to use, you use what you have to use.

      Also, all the scientific arguments are discussed in introductory books like “The Case for a Creator” and “God’s Crime Scene”. These are high-school level concepts.


  5. One of your best posts. Concise, yet thorough. I am going to print this one out and use it as a foundation. Thanks again for your help in connecting reason with a subject (apologetics) that many (myself included) have a difficult time with. Please don’t stop.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to bookinweasel Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s