This article first appeared in the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, Volume 25, Number 04 (2003).
Viewpoint articles address relevant contemporary issues in discernment and apologetics from a particular perspective that is usually not shared by all Christians, with the intended result that Christians’ thinking on that issue will be stimulated and enhanced (whether or not people end up agreeing with the author’s opinion).
When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,500 articles and Bible Answers, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.
Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here.
The academic study of apologetics has been invaluable for those who have taken an interest in the subject. Unlike many other academic subjects, however, the study of apologetics does not find its justification in the mere acquisition of knowledge. Apologetics as a discipline finds its expression in one’s contact with the nonbelieving world. The oft-quoted verse for apologetics establishes the context for one’s pursuit of it. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15 NKJV).
What then is “armchair apologetics”? Often those who have been the most prolific in the academic approach to apologetics have been the least likely to use it in an encounter with a nonbeliever. Cornelius Van Til conveyed such an insight to Francis Schaeffer in a letter he wrote regarding Schaeffer’s apologetic method. Van Til averred, “Here you have the advantage over me. You converse constantly with modern artists, modern existentialists, etc., etc., as they eat at your table, study their literature. Whereas I am only a book-worm.”1 I do not think that this makes Van Til’s insights into apologetics invalid, nor do I think that makes Schaeffer’s approach more correct because he was more active in how he communicated it. The main point here is that we understand the real basis for apologetics.
Van Til stated it succinctly in the previous quote: Schaeffer had an advantage over him because Schaeffer was in the trenches daily engaging and living his apologetic in the face of modern desperation. L’Abri stood as an apologetic by its mere existence; as Schaeffer often said, it was a testimony to the God who is there. Van Til could not say this, and he was at a loss because of it. A friend of mine once described this armchair approach as one’s desire to crack philosophical chestnuts. The real danger in armchair apologetics is, therefore, that one does not adequately fulfill the mandate given by the apostle Peter. Being “always ready” means that one is really prepared at any moment to be called on to state his or her hope. Armchair apologetics, on the other hand, becomes more like a thought experiment — “What would it be like if a nonbeliever really asked me a question?” — and yet there is not a regular practice to engage one in discussion.
It should be added that many who pursue apologetics in this armchair style are not professional academicians. I have found that large numbers of those interested in apologetics follow it avocationally. It is like a hobby or sport. There is a sense of satisfaction being “right” and of being able to “win” over an opponent or in being more cleaver than another. As much as this might be an appropriate disposition toward sports, it is not our calling in apologetics.
The Christian apologist who takes Peter’s words seriously cannot be content to give a theoretical answer to a hypothetical nonbeliever. The apologist must find the proper setting for apologetics in evangelizing. Our concern for the lost and our zeal to obey Christ’s command to reach the lost must be what drives our apologetics. If they do not drive our apologetics, then we are left with “armchair apologetics.”
— Eric Brook
NOTES
- Cornelius Van Til, “A Letter to Francis Schaeffer,” March 11, 1969, in The Works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895–1987, ed. Eric H. Sigward (Jackson Heights, NY: Labels Army, 1997), CD-ROM.
