Theology 1.0: What is apologetics?

An admission of guilt?
Apologetics (in this context) is simply the defence of the Christian gospel and faith. Often mistaken for an admission of guilt, failure or fault, an apologetic (or apology) involves give an answer (or a reasoned response) to explain certain beliefs or actions. Technically sepaking, a defence lawyer would be giving apologies all the time, but they are not admissions of guilt!

Who is the apologist?
The Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 makes in clear-- all Christians are expected to give a reason for the hope the have in Christ, but with gentleness and respect.

The Apostle Paul sets up an example how how we Christians should proclaim apologetics. In Acts 17: 1-4, Paul respectfully followed Jewish traditions to reason with the Jewish audience in Thessalonia. In Athens, Paul reasoned gently (Acts 17: 16-34) but forcefully for the Christian God against other gods. He followed suit in Ephesus, where he reasoned in both the synagoue for three months, and a secular lecture hall for three years (Acts 19: 8-10).

This acts of proclaimation was not limited to Paul, as the Apostle Philip also gently and respectfully explained Scripture to an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8: 26-40).

How does it apply for us Christians, then?
As the New Testament shows, apologetics is not separate from evangelism. The reason why Paul and Philip spent time to reason with their peers is for the sake of the gospel (Matthew 28:16-20). Likewise, we Christians should not be afraid to show that reason is not contrary to our faith.

Although we may not have all the answers, or know everything about our faith, it should not hinder our efforts to make the gospel known. In fact, our non-believing friends would appreciate our honesty if we do not.

But I'm not an Apostle/Theologian/Priest/Pastor!
Unless you're Timothy Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church), Francis Collins (ex-head of the Human Genome Project) or Ravi Zacharias(Christian apologist), odds are we will not be invited to speak at university halls or the like. But no one is asking you to do that. On a personal level, we can invite our friends one-on-one for coffee or a movie. At the community level we can volunteer for church activites or a community centre soup kitchen.

There are many ways to evangelise. But let's reverse the question-- are you willing?

References
What is Apologetics?

With Due Respect: Christians value the Bible over Jesus!

Recently, an article in the Guardian (a British newspaper) criticised on how much Protestants value the Bible over God. While it is well-written, I find some points raised questionable, and will attempt to handle them here. I encourage you guys to go take a look.

Bear in mind that I am probably not as well-read in Christian history or theology as the author (Stephen Tomkins) in Guardian (I am currently doing a Masters in Biology), so my reply would not be as refined as his.

The problem with Bible literalism
While the author seems to critique Bible literalism, he seems to suggest (he didn't write it explicitly) that just because the some parts of the Bible is not literal, it is not true (referring to the earth was "created in six days").  However, one must recall that something may be true, yet not literal. Take for Songs of Song for instance. It is definitely not literal, but it is an honest expression of Solomon for his beloved.

The author also suggests that we should read the Bible asking questions about context (eg: "What was St Paul saying to the Galatians?" and "How would first-century Asia Minor have understood these words?"). I agree with this point, and would also like to add that I have never been to a Bible study session where we did not consider context.

Jesus vs the Bible
The author raises up an important question-- who do Protestants value more, Jesus or the Bible. While sounding witty and intelligent, the author misses an important point-- which Jesus should we worship then? The Jesus of the Quran who spoke in Mary's womb? The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar who died and remained dead? The Jesus or the Church of Latter Day Saints who also appeared in the Americas? Or Jesus of the New Testament, who died for the sins of mankind. Ultimately, something has to be authoritative.

Furthermore, he also fails to mention that Jesus Himself regarded Scripture highly, and referred that Scripture was about Him (eg: Luke 24:44, John 5:39). So if the Bible is fine with Jesus, it's ok with me. The idea of Jesus vs the Bible is a false dichotomy.

Criticism of Bible writers
While it can be argued the intention of Biblical writers were riffed with political discourse, it's also perfectly possible they were genuine. After all, they were writing what they felt was divine. Wouldn't they carefully write it then?

Summary
While the question of the Bible's authority must be asked, one must to readily to reverse the questions on oneself--without the Bible, how do we know the nature of God? How would God reveal his nature to mankind?