What do you think?
Rate this book
Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today
Is it still possible, in an age of religious and cultural pluralism, to engage in Christian apologetics? How can one urge one's faith on others when such a gesture is typically regarded with suspicion, if not outright resentment?
In Humble Apologetics John G. Stackhouse brings his wide experience as a historian, philosopher, journalist, and theologian to these important questions and offers surprising--and reassuring--answers. Stackhouse begins by acknowledging the real impediments to Christian testimony in North America today and to other faiths in modern societies around the world. He shows how pluralism, postmodernism, skepticism, and a host of other factors create a cultural milieu resistant to the Christian message. And he shows how the arrogance or dogmatism of apologists themselves can alienate rather than attract potential converts. Indeed, Stackhouse argues that the crucial experience of conversion cannot be compelled; all the apologist can do is lead another to the point where an actual encounter with Jesus can take place. Finally, he shows how displaying an attitude of humility, instead of merely trying to win religious arguments, will help believers offer their neighbors the gift of Christ's love.
Drawing on the author's personal experience and written with an engaging directness and an unassuming nature, Humble Apologetics provides sound guidance on how to share Christian faith in a postmodern world.
In Humble Apologetics John G. Stackhouse brings his wide experience as a historian, philosopher, journalist, and theologian to these important questions and offers surprising--and reassuring--answers. Stackhouse begins by acknowledging the real impediments to Christian testimony in North America today and to other faiths in modern societies around the world. He shows how pluralism, postmodernism, skepticism, and a host of other factors create a cultural milieu resistant to the Christian message. And he shows how the arrogance or dogmatism of apologists themselves can alienate rather than attract potential converts. Indeed, Stackhouse argues that the crucial experience of conversion cannot be compelled; all the apologist can do is lead another to the point where an actual encounter with Jesus can take place. Finally, he shows how displaying an attitude of humility, instead of merely trying to win religious arguments, will help believers offer their neighbors the gift of Christ's love.
Drawing on the author's personal experience and written with an engaging directness and an unassuming nature, Humble Apologetics provides sound guidance on how to share Christian faith in a postmodern world.
262 pages, Paperback
Published July 20, 2006
32 people are currently reading
175 people want to read
About the author
John G. Stackhouse Jr.
24 books89 followersA graduate of Queen's University (BA, first class), Wheaton College Graduate School (MA, summa cum laude), and The University of Chicago (PhD), he taught European history and then modern Christianity at postsecondary institutions in both the USA and Canada.
He is the author of eleven books, editor of four more, and co-author or co-editor of another half dozen. He has published over 700 articles, book chapters, and reviews, and his work has been featured on most major North American TV networks, in most major radio markets, and in periodicals as diverse as The New York Times, The Atlantic, Christianity Today, The Christian Century, The Times Literary Supplement, Time, and The Globe and Mail.
Dr. Stackhouse has lectured at Harvard's Kennedy School, Yale's Divinity School, Stanford's Law School, Hong Kong University, Edinburgh University, Fudan University, Otago University, and many other universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
He lives in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
He is the author of eleven books, editor of four more, and co-author or co-editor of another half dozen. He has published over 700 articles, book chapters, and reviews, and his work has been featured on most major North American TV networks, in most major radio markets, and in periodicals as diverse as The New York Times, The Atlantic, Christianity Today, The Christian Century, The Times Literary Supplement, Time, and The Globe and Mail.
Dr. Stackhouse has lectured at Harvard's Kennedy School, Yale's Divinity School, Stanford's Law School, Hong Kong University, Edinburgh University, Fudan University, Otago University, and many other universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
He lives in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 8, 2016
While I understand John's point that we should be humble in our effort to reach others, sometimes it's just the Truth that offends (case in point, Jesus). Something that struck me as odd was John hoping believers of others faiths will find this book's principles useful, but shouldn't John be encouraged to affirm the truth of his faith to adherents of other faiths instead?
He fails to mention that it becomes illogical in pluralism to claim different meanings of life as all true. Contradictory truth claims cannot all be valid. Can Christ be as true as Vishnu? His illustrations of ice-cream flavors and cars aren't comparable to truth about existence; disagreeing about the true faith doesn't mean one faith isn't in fact right. If we mustn't treat our religion as certainly right, what does John do with John 14:6? He quoted Humphry Davy with what sounds like a panentheistic statement about feeling pain in tearing a leaf, but feelings don't deal with existential truths. In response to the Romantic view of Christianity as per Alfred Tennyson's poem, I thought of Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-2, and Jeremiah 17:5-9. In the talk of mystical experiences and knowing He lives because "He lives within my heart", there is no mention at all that this can be reasoned via historical evidence of the Resurrection.
John makes a false illustration of seeing a concert from different vantage places - this doesn't change the fact there is the same absolute stage they all see. Also, preferences about doing things the "right way" in life are incomparable to truth about purpose and meaning of that life. Truth can never be discovered in a society that doubts everything. I'm still not sure what all his examples on page 31 have to do with truth claims about life itself.
John mentions how "the hot spot of conflict" has shifted from cosmology to biological evolution, but the difference is that the former is observable and the latter isn't. He states how "evolution became a symbol for modern critical thought struggling against superstitious religious dogma" after the Scopes Trial, even though the trial was set up and the evolutionist arguments have since been discredited. The thought that science has debunked and replaced religion by technology is strange, since this is operational (not historical) science.
John recaps "the doubt regarding any absolute standard by which we can decide among [choices]", but by what standard do we absolutely know we can't decide among these choices? He mentions the consumerist mentality of the self being sovereign, but doesn’t mention this is also contradictory, for every “self” can’t be sovereign. What the market says is “good” can only be preference without an absolute standard. He compares the sovereign consumerist self making “a free decision according to what the market offers” with the sovereign democratic self choosing “among the options put before it”, but that is actually a forced choice for they don’t choose the options. “Rightness” is said to be “entirely in the eye of the consumer”, but once again, rightness loses the objective standard by which to be judged as right and becomes a mere preference among others. John compares choosing religion with Christians “church-shopping”, but this isn’t the same as picking and choosing from contradicting religions.
John writes that conversion would be inappropriate for a Muslim simply because its the authentic form of religion in their culture, but if salvation is only by God's grace through Christ, why leave the Muslim to die in his works? John wants to move from "warfare waged on behalf of the neighbor's soul", but since life is spiritual warfare, any attempt at converting others is warfare. John seems to talk against single-point conversions, but they do happen, as do others - God saves people in many ways. John writes we must not try to convert anyone, because "God's Spirit alone can convert", but this doesn't mean we can't hope God will use apologetics as a means for some, as He has in the past.
John writes that two people living in different parts of Chicago have two realities, but these two "realities" can both be true in an overarching reality of life in Chicago, unlike the reality of one right religion. His parallels make the false notion that all paths lead to the same God (as the same reality of all). He writes one cannot find the best religion and ought to maintain a critical openness "just in case a better option comes along", which makes me wonder if John thinks this way about his Christianity as well. He stresses that Christian apologetics cannot convince anyone to become a Christian, yet the Spirit can use it, as in the cases of C.S. Lewis, Augustine, Simon Greenleaf, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, etc.
He writes a Christian doesn't have to defend "a six-by-24-hour-day creation" because "many faithful Christians" in history interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively. However, the implications to the Gospel a figurative Genesis has is more important than what others think. His illustration of apologetics to chiliasts being like a learned discussion on a sinking Titanic is silly, for they still tried to save people with lifeboats (Jesus).
John quotes Jesus in Matthew 21:27 as an example of Him lapsing into silence due to the deteriorating relationship with those who refuse to accept Him as Messiah, but Jesus continues talking to them after this. He only said He wouldn't answer about His authority, not that He'll stop answering. The main gist throughout is that we have to be humble enough to know we can't be certain about anything, but if we believe we know we have the truth, why lie and pretend it's our best guess? He names Alvin Plantinga as one who could guide us in arguing over the problem of evil, but it's too bad Plantinga is an old-earther and thus can't see natural evil as a result of Adam's Fall (Romans 8:22, Genesis 3:17-18). There is no need to reconcile God's truth with man's false theories. Truth is truth, even if we're limited. Hence, we have faith, but it's a confident faith (Hebrews 11:1).
John says that in order to know why Christianity is the best religion, we'd need a Ph.D. in studying each religion, we'd need to convert to each religion, and we'd need to evaluate them according to an objective standard. I disagree, for we know Christianity is unlike all religions, in that God Himself came to do what we can't in any work-based religion. That is enough reason. He also writes that we needn't try to answer questions no one can answer or that we "could never answer", but this doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to learn more about questions we cannot answer. In his push to be humble, John writes how he told an apologist friend to say "I don't know" even if he thought he did "to look humble to the audience as a fellow seeker", but that is deceptive and dishonest. Later, John mentions how C.S. Lewis "risked diverting or even alienating his readers" by discussing something "that really was not vital to his main discussion", such as gender roles. Lewis writes "that there must be a 'head' in terms of resolving disagreements between the spouses", which John calls a "highly problematic idea, whether logically, politically, or theologically!" What is wrong with this biblical order that God instituted? John writes "that many others in our day would be so offended by such a passage that it would put them off the whole book", but are we here to please men or to please God? Jesus - and His Truth - offends. Mere Christianity is a discussion about Christianity, so how is marriage in God's eyes irrelevant to it? Also, how will people be convicted without "needless offense"? John continues to write that one needn't wrangle over correct and harmonious biblical details to argue for the historical reliability of the New Testament portraits of Jesus, but it is important they be harmonious if one cares about God's Word being a perfect representation of His inerrancy. John also makes the statement that apologetics "that try to show that current scientific theory and discovery support Christian teaching end up forlorn when science moves in a different direction", so why doesn't he see this is precisely why we shouldn't fit scientific theories into God's Word (i.e., Genesis)? Later still, he writes we should avoid "secondary matters" (read: "creation versus evolution" and apocalyptic themes), but what if those are obstacles hindering some from accepting Jesus? John asks what good it does encouraging people to "focus on Jesus" nowadays with Him "dead and gone" two thousand years later, but shouldn't we be focusing on the truth of His resurrection? After all, it's the foundation of our hope and faith. John asks if it ultimately matters "whether science and Christianity are in easy harmony with each other", but it does matter to a lot of people. Further, John makes the assertion that Jesus' disciples got to know Him "only...through the life of his body" and "never had direct access to Jesus' mind and heart" as we get to know each other, but we can't know everything Jesus shared personally from His mind or heart. These sound like claims of certainty to me! In addition, John states it's odious to pronounce one "intellectually or morally deficient for not immediately granting the superiority of our views". Still, total depravity keeps us all dead in sin, corrupted and unable to be saved without the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:7) - thus deficient. Another point he makes is that we shouldn't share a digest of the Gospel in every conversation since Jesus never offered "a terse, formulaic summary of his message", but shouldn't every apologetic lead ultimately to Jesus and His work on the cross?
John brings up gender roles again, expressing how attitudes toward them nowadays "strike many of us as sexist, and apologetics containing such attitudes will be off-putting". In the notes, he adds that he uses "gender-inclusive language even for God", not because he thinks one always should, but because it's "an accommodation to the concerns of many people who might have been put off [his book Can God Be Trusted?] over what is, in that discussion, a secondary matter". My question is this: why then please people, rather than God, over a secondary matter? Jesus never called God "Mother". John then moves onto debates and makes the observation that there's an attendance pattern "of enthusiastic attendance at debates versus much smaller attendance at the same apologist's individual lecture the next day", but perhaps this is because the former is open to the public and the latter is not? I don't know his experiences, or those of Jean Hampton (whom he quoted), but I haven't seen disparaging, ridiculing, or hostile dialogues. He states "worst of all is the spiritual polarization...leading directly to the deadly sin of pride", but was Jesus prideful in Matthew 12:30? Is His statement contemptuous?
Will others take our beliefs seriously if we tell them we're not sure we're right? If we're to be humble because we're not the One who could speak "with authority" in a way no one else can speak, wouldn't it be enough to repeat the things the One "with authority" said about the truth? We can congratulate ourselves for our arguments and imperil our faith by reducing the basis of our faith to them, or we can give God the glory and know that our faith doesn't rest on our arguments. He quotes 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 to show not to link faith with clever argument, but interestingly, I had a Pentecostal use this passage on me to discount apologetics altogether.
We either believe the gospel that Jesus was raised from the dead (the most important point and, unfortunately, lacking in this book) for us, which validated all He said and did, or we don’t – everything else falls on that truth we can be sure of. This is what I base my faith on; not on my personal knowledge.
He fails to mention that it becomes illogical in pluralism to claim different meanings of life as all true. Contradictory truth claims cannot all be valid. Can Christ be as true as Vishnu? His illustrations of ice-cream flavors and cars aren't comparable to truth about existence; disagreeing about the true faith doesn't mean one faith isn't in fact right. If we mustn't treat our religion as certainly right, what does John do with John 14:6? He quoted Humphry Davy with what sounds like a panentheistic statement about feeling pain in tearing a leaf, but feelings don't deal with existential truths. In response to the Romantic view of Christianity as per Alfred Tennyson's poem, I thought of Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-2, and Jeremiah 17:5-9. In the talk of mystical experiences and knowing He lives because "He lives within my heart", there is no mention at all that this can be reasoned via historical evidence of the Resurrection.
John makes a false illustration of seeing a concert from different vantage places - this doesn't change the fact there is the same absolute stage they all see. Also, preferences about doing things the "right way" in life are incomparable to truth about purpose and meaning of that life. Truth can never be discovered in a society that doubts everything. I'm still not sure what all his examples on page 31 have to do with truth claims about life itself.
John mentions how "the hot spot of conflict" has shifted from cosmology to biological evolution, but the difference is that the former is observable and the latter isn't. He states how "evolution became a symbol for modern critical thought struggling against superstitious religious dogma" after the Scopes Trial, even though the trial was set up and the evolutionist arguments have since been discredited. The thought that science has debunked and replaced religion by technology is strange, since this is operational (not historical) science.
John recaps "the doubt regarding any absolute standard by which we can decide among [choices]", but by what standard do we absolutely know we can't decide among these choices? He mentions the consumerist mentality of the self being sovereign, but doesn’t mention this is also contradictory, for every “self” can’t be sovereign. What the market says is “good” can only be preference without an absolute standard. He compares the sovereign consumerist self making “a free decision according to what the market offers” with the sovereign democratic self choosing “among the options put before it”, but that is actually a forced choice for they don’t choose the options. “Rightness” is said to be “entirely in the eye of the consumer”, but once again, rightness loses the objective standard by which to be judged as right and becomes a mere preference among others. John compares choosing religion with Christians “church-shopping”, but this isn’t the same as picking and choosing from contradicting religions.
John writes that conversion would be inappropriate for a Muslim simply because its the authentic form of religion in their culture, but if salvation is only by God's grace through Christ, why leave the Muslim to die in his works? John wants to move from "warfare waged on behalf of the neighbor's soul", but since life is spiritual warfare, any attempt at converting others is warfare. John seems to talk against single-point conversions, but they do happen, as do others - God saves people in many ways. John writes we must not try to convert anyone, because "God's Spirit alone can convert", but this doesn't mean we can't hope God will use apologetics as a means for some, as He has in the past.
John writes that two people living in different parts of Chicago have two realities, but these two "realities" can both be true in an overarching reality of life in Chicago, unlike the reality of one right religion. His parallels make the false notion that all paths lead to the same God (as the same reality of all). He writes one cannot find the best religion and ought to maintain a critical openness "just in case a better option comes along", which makes me wonder if John thinks this way about his Christianity as well. He stresses that Christian apologetics cannot convince anyone to become a Christian, yet the Spirit can use it, as in the cases of C.S. Lewis, Augustine, Simon Greenleaf, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, etc.
He writes a Christian doesn't have to defend "a six-by-24-hour-day creation" because "many faithful Christians" in history interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively. However, the implications to the Gospel a figurative Genesis has is more important than what others think. His illustration of apologetics to chiliasts being like a learned discussion on a sinking Titanic is silly, for they still tried to save people with lifeboats (Jesus).
John quotes Jesus in Matthew 21:27 as an example of Him lapsing into silence due to the deteriorating relationship with those who refuse to accept Him as Messiah, but Jesus continues talking to them after this. He only said He wouldn't answer about His authority, not that He'll stop answering. The main gist throughout is that we have to be humble enough to know we can't be certain about anything, but if we believe we know we have the truth, why lie and pretend it's our best guess? He names Alvin Plantinga as one who could guide us in arguing over the problem of evil, but it's too bad Plantinga is an old-earther and thus can't see natural evil as a result of Adam's Fall (Romans 8:22, Genesis 3:17-18). There is no need to reconcile God's truth with man's false theories. Truth is truth, even if we're limited. Hence, we have faith, but it's a confident faith (Hebrews 11:1).
John says that in order to know why Christianity is the best religion, we'd need a Ph.D. in studying each religion, we'd need to convert to each religion, and we'd need to evaluate them according to an objective standard. I disagree, for we know Christianity is unlike all religions, in that God Himself came to do what we can't in any work-based religion. That is enough reason. He also writes that we needn't try to answer questions no one can answer or that we "could never answer", but this doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to learn more about questions we cannot answer. In his push to be humble, John writes how he told an apologist friend to say "I don't know" even if he thought he did "to look humble to the audience as a fellow seeker", but that is deceptive and dishonest. Later, John mentions how C.S. Lewis "risked diverting or even alienating his readers" by discussing something "that really was not vital to his main discussion", such as gender roles. Lewis writes "that there must be a 'head' in terms of resolving disagreements between the spouses", which John calls a "highly problematic idea, whether logically, politically, or theologically!" What is wrong with this biblical order that God instituted? John writes "that many others in our day would be so offended by such a passage that it would put them off the whole book", but are we here to please men or to please God? Jesus - and His Truth - offends. Mere Christianity is a discussion about Christianity, so how is marriage in God's eyes irrelevant to it? Also, how will people be convicted without "needless offense"? John continues to write that one needn't wrangle over correct and harmonious biblical details to argue for the historical reliability of the New Testament portraits of Jesus, but it is important they be harmonious if one cares about God's Word being a perfect representation of His inerrancy. John also makes the statement that apologetics "that try to show that current scientific theory and discovery support Christian teaching end up forlorn when science moves in a different direction", so why doesn't he see this is precisely why we shouldn't fit scientific theories into God's Word (i.e., Genesis)? Later still, he writes we should avoid "secondary matters" (read: "creation versus evolution" and apocalyptic themes), but what if those are obstacles hindering some from accepting Jesus? John asks what good it does encouraging people to "focus on Jesus" nowadays with Him "dead and gone" two thousand years later, but shouldn't we be focusing on the truth of His resurrection? After all, it's the foundation of our hope and faith. John asks if it ultimately matters "whether science and Christianity are in easy harmony with each other", but it does matter to a lot of people. Further, John makes the assertion that Jesus' disciples got to know Him "only...through the life of his body" and "never had direct access to Jesus' mind and heart" as we get to know each other, but we can't know everything Jesus shared personally from His mind or heart. These sound like claims of certainty to me! In addition, John states it's odious to pronounce one "intellectually or morally deficient for not immediately granting the superiority of our views". Still, total depravity keeps us all dead in sin, corrupted and unable to be saved without the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:7) - thus deficient. Another point he makes is that we shouldn't share a digest of the Gospel in every conversation since Jesus never offered "a terse, formulaic summary of his message", but shouldn't every apologetic lead ultimately to Jesus and His work on the cross?
John brings up gender roles again, expressing how attitudes toward them nowadays "strike many of us as sexist, and apologetics containing such attitudes will be off-putting". In the notes, he adds that he uses "gender-inclusive language even for God", not because he thinks one always should, but because it's "an accommodation to the concerns of many people who might have been put off [his book Can God Be Trusted?] over what is, in that discussion, a secondary matter". My question is this: why then please people, rather than God, over a secondary matter? Jesus never called God "Mother". John then moves onto debates and makes the observation that there's an attendance pattern "of enthusiastic attendance at debates versus much smaller attendance at the same apologist's individual lecture the next day", but perhaps this is because the former is open to the public and the latter is not? I don't know his experiences, or those of Jean Hampton (whom he quoted), but I haven't seen disparaging, ridiculing, or hostile dialogues. He states "worst of all is the spiritual polarization...leading directly to the deadly sin of pride", but was Jesus prideful in Matthew 12:30? Is His statement contemptuous?
Will others take our beliefs seriously if we tell them we're not sure we're right? If we're to be humble because we're not the One who could speak "with authority" in a way no one else can speak, wouldn't it be enough to repeat the things the One "with authority" said about the truth? We can congratulate ourselves for our arguments and imperil our faith by reducing the basis of our faith to them, or we can give God the glory and know that our faith doesn't rest on our arguments. He quotes 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 to show not to link faith with clever argument, but interestingly, I had a Pentecostal use this passage on me to discount apologetics altogether.
We either believe the gospel that Jesus was raised from the dead (the most important point and, unfortunately, lacking in this book) for us, which validated all He said and did, or we don’t – everything else falls on that truth we can be sure of. This is what I base my faith on; not on my personal knowledge.
March 24, 2012
I wasn't surprised to see that many people who reviewed this book did not finish it. The book is very academic, and not an easy read, even though the author is an effective communicator in writing. However, if you make it past the first half of the book, where he discusses the roadblocks our society faces these days with post-modernism, consumerism, etc., in depth, you will be much more thrilled with the second half, where he talks about actual means of going about humble apologetics. The book took me forever to read, mainly because of how long it took me to slog through the first half; the second half I devoured more eagerly. My dog-earing did not begin in earnest until page 113, where I read the words "...argument cannot produce affection."
I will say that if you are looking to read up on actual arguments for the faith that you can use in apologetic dialogue, this isn't the book for you. This book mainly discusses some APPROACHES we should take with apologetics today.
The single best chapter of this book was Chapter 10 "Guidelines for Apologetic Conversation." So many practical pearls of wisdom here.
Some of the things I really took away from the book was the gravity of what you are doing when you are encouraging someone toward faith. They aren't just making an intellectual decision--they are changing their entire worldview. Therefore, we shouldn't be so surprised and disappointed when people don't "come around" immediately; for many, this decision is a result of a long journey. Chapter 10 talks about remembering "process" as well as "crisis" meaning you don't have to break out your "you need to be a Christian" spiel every single time the topic of spirituality comes up with a friend who doesn't know Christ. Connected to this is the fact that Jesus never offered a "terse, formulaic summary of his message" like so many evangelism courses urge Christians to do.
Secondly, I took away the importance of not coming across that we as Christians know all the answers (we truly don't) and that no one is really "argued" into relationship with God; rather, God's Holy Spirit is as work in that person and may choose to use you as the apologist in what HE is doing. It's important to have the humility to say "I don't know," even if you are the greatest apologist there is.
A third thing I took away from this book is that "apologetics is about winning the friend, not the argument."
A fourth thing is the importance of keeping the main thing the main thing, meaning it's important to bring the conversation back to the person of Jesus Christ as much as possible.
In summary, while not the easiest read out there, this is an important book for people who don't just want to know apologetic arguments, but means of using them that may actually be effective in today's society
I will say that if you are looking to read up on actual arguments for the faith that you can use in apologetic dialogue, this isn't the book for you. This book mainly discusses some APPROACHES we should take with apologetics today.
The single best chapter of this book was Chapter 10 "Guidelines for Apologetic Conversation." So many practical pearls of wisdom here.
Some of the things I really took away from the book was the gravity of what you are doing when you are encouraging someone toward faith. They aren't just making an intellectual decision--they are changing their entire worldview. Therefore, we shouldn't be so surprised and disappointed when people don't "come around" immediately; for many, this decision is a result of a long journey. Chapter 10 talks about remembering "process" as well as "crisis" meaning you don't have to break out your "you need to be a Christian" spiel every single time the topic of spirituality comes up with a friend who doesn't know Christ. Connected to this is the fact that Jesus never offered a "terse, formulaic summary of his message" like so many evangelism courses urge Christians to do.
Secondly, I took away the importance of not coming across that we as Christians know all the answers (we truly don't) and that no one is really "argued" into relationship with God; rather, God's Holy Spirit is as work in that person and may choose to use you as the apologist in what HE is doing. It's important to have the humility to say "I don't know," even if you are the greatest apologist there is.
A third thing I took away from this book is that "apologetics is about winning the friend, not the argument."
A fourth thing is the importance of keeping the main thing the main thing, meaning it's important to bring the conversation back to the person of Jesus Christ as much as possible.
In summary, while not the easiest read out there, this is an important book for people who don't just want to know apologetic arguments, but means of using them that may actually be effective in today's society
June 3, 2024
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR HOW APOLOGETICS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED
John Gordon Stackhouse Jr. (born 1960) is a Canadian journalist and theologian who currently teaches at Crandall University, but previously taught at Wheaton College, Northwestern College, the University of Manitoba, and Regent College (from 1998–2015).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “How can believers both defend and commend their religion without needlessly offending their neighbors and exacerbating the tensions of the global village? ‘Apologetics’ is the study and practice of such ‘defending and commending,’ and this book presents guidelines for apologetics that should make such encounters truly profitable for everyone who engages in them.” (Pg. xi) He adds, “This book concludes with some reflections on how out apologetics must be reconceived as, in a word, HUMBLE. We ought to engage in apologetical conversation as we engage in anything else in the Christian walk: with full recognition of the smallness and weakness of our abilities and efforts, but also with gratitude to God for calling us to work with him in such a grand project.” (Pg. xvii)
He points out, “Let’s begin with a fact that is overwhelmingly obvious, but often overlooked by ardent Christians. Most North Americans believe that they are Christians already…. It is evident that relatively few of the professing Christians in the general population actually attend church regularly… Nonetheless, if someone THINKS he is a Christian, why would he need to hear from you or me about the Christian faith?... No, with the cultural residuum of Christianity still broadly evident in both countries, it is no wonder that Christian proclamation has trouble getting people’s attention… In sum, we face today a dual challenge from most of our neighbors: They profess a faith they do not understand very well; but because they THINK their understanding is adequate… they feel no need to listen to someone who wants to introduce them to Christianity.” (Pg. 42, 44)
He observes, “Ironically… when religions are processed through the machine of consumerism, they end up reinforcing the deep secularity that is pervasive in modern society. Whatever the actual beliefs this or that person might hold regarding God, the supernatural… the actual ceiling of decision making and accountability is low indeed. I pick the gods I want; I pick the rules I want to live by; I pick the rituals that suit me best. No higher authority and no higher power tells me what to do. All of these themes characterize religion in the private sphere of contemporary life.” (Pg. 62)
He explains, “I see a middle course---epistemologists sometimes call this view ‘critical realism.’ I believe, on the one hand, that human beings cannot know things with absolute certainty… I also believe, however, that God has given us reason, our five senses… and other good gifts… we run up against reality every day… and it needs explaining. The thoughtful person will then try to find out what explains it best… We cannot see things purely objectively. But… the best we can do is to keep refining our hypotheses… to make the most sense we can of what we experience.” (Pg. 104-105)
He clarifies, “such faith does not mean the suspension of critical thinking… You might be entirely entitled to believe in religion X… But if you run up against challenges … the intelligent person is obliged to pay attention to them… So we face the final question. Can I believe? This book, and others like it, can provide at best only INTELLECTUAL warrants… They cannot prove the truth of Christianity or of any other religion beyond a reasonable doubt, since… some of the most basic matters discussed in most religions are complex beyond any total explanation, let alone complete truth… we each are influenced by what we perceive to be in our own best interest to believe is the truth.” (Pg. 110-111)
He suggests, “Apologetics… ought to be a part of every program of Christian education, whether I the home or in the church. Doubts about Christian affirmations arise naturally in the course of living in this world… Apologetical arguments properly can help strengthen a Christian’s confidence… apologetics can not only perform the ‘negative’ act… of clearing away impediments… but apologetics also can perform the positive act of offering winsome inducements to the inquirer… I conclude that the various forms of Christian resistance to apologetics have resulted from over-emphasis or misconstruals of the nature of the Christian faith…” (Pg. 118, 120, 127) Later, he adds “Fundamentally, then, apologetics is about winning the friend, not the argument. We offer apologetics in service of Christian friends, to encourage their faith. We also do so in the service of those who are not Christians, to encourage their interest.” (Pg. 141)
He acknowledges, “we should have sympathy as we appreciate the strangeness of Christianity. It is, let’s be honest, an odd religion… most Christians… agree on the basic tenets and practices of the Christian religion. The problem is that some of those tenets are literally inexplicable, such as how God can be both three and one in the Trinity; or how this God became truly human in Jesus Christ; or how the suffering and dying of this one individual on the Cross can possibly atone for the sins of the world. Why… would anyone believe such a set of propositions when even the greatest theologians do not claim to understand them?” (Pg. 162-163)
He states, “Since the heart of God’s revelation of himself is the figure of Jesus Christ, and since the heart of the Christian story of salvation is the career of Jesus Christ, Christian apologetics… rightly focuses on Jesus Christ. The heart of the Christian religion is personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is this to which apologists hope to point their neighbors.” (Pg. 189) Later, he adds, “We must not reduce God’s mission to the world… simply to the verbal articulation of a gospel digest for them to accept or reject. Instead, let us love our neighbors as best we can each moment according to the need and opportunity.” (Pg. 203)
He summarizes, “It may be… that so many people in our communities today generally are NOT deeply interested in what Christians have to say theologically and philosophically. Since the Christian message fundamentally is an invitation extended to human beings… to encounter and embrace the person of Jesus Christ… it is then obvious that establishing the plausibility and credibility of that message will depend upon more than intellectual argument. It will depend instead upon the Holy Spirit of God shining out…” (Pg. 226)
He concludes, “For all we know, we MIGHT BE WRONG about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. That whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly. But what we THINK we know does point in a single direction: to the claims of the gospel. And on the basis of what we think we know… we offer to our neighbors in apologetics the Truth, the Goodness, and the Beauty we think we have found. We do so in the firm hope… that the gospel of life-changing blessing will bless them, too.” (Pg. 232)
If you want an apologetics book that gives “60-second answers to skeptics’ arguments,” this is not that book. But if you want a thoughtful Evangelical discussion of the principles or “philosophy” of Apologetics, this book will be “must reading.”
John Gordon Stackhouse Jr. (born 1960) is a Canadian journalist and theologian who currently teaches at Crandall University, but previously taught at Wheaton College, Northwestern College, the University of Manitoba, and Regent College (from 1998–2015).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “How can believers both defend and commend their religion without needlessly offending their neighbors and exacerbating the tensions of the global village? ‘Apologetics’ is the study and practice of such ‘defending and commending,’ and this book presents guidelines for apologetics that should make such encounters truly profitable for everyone who engages in them.” (Pg. xi) He adds, “This book concludes with some reflections on how out apologetics must be reconceived as, in a word, HUMBLE. We ought to engage in apologetical conversation as we engage in anything else in the Christian walk: with full recognition of the smallness and weakness of our abilities and efforts, but also with gratitude to God for calling us to work with him in such a grand project.” (Pg. xvii)
He points out, “Let’s begin with a fact that is overwhelmingly obvious, but often overlooked by ardent Christians. Most North Americans believe that they are Christians already…. It is evident that relatively few of the professing Christians in the general population actually attend church regularly… Nonetheless, if someone THINKS he is a Christian, why would he need to hear from you or me about the Christian faith?... No, with the cultural residuum of Christianity still broadly evident in both countries, it is no wonder that Christian proclamation has trouble getting people’s attention… In sum, we face today a dual challenge from most of our neighbors: They profess a faith they do not understand very well; but because they THINK their understanding is adequate… they feel no need to listen to someone who wants to introduce them to Christianity.” (Pg. 42, 44)
He observes, “Ironically… when religions are processed through the machine of consumerism, they end up reinforcing the deep secularity that is pervasive in modern society. Whatever the actual beliefs this or that person might hold regarding God, the supernatural… the actual ceiling of decision making and accountability is low indeed. I pick the gods I want; I pick the rules I want to live by; I pick the rituals that suit me best. No higher authority and no higher power tells me what to do. All of these themes characterize religion in the private sphere of contemporary life.” (Pg. 62)
He explains, “I see a middle course---epistemologists sometimes call this view ‘critical realism.’ I believe, on the one hand, that human beings cannot know things with absolute certainty… I also believe, however, that God has given us reason, our five senses… and other good gifts… we run up against reality every day… and it needs explaining. The thoughtful person will then try to find out what explains it best… We cannot see things purely objectively. But… the best we can do is to keep refining our hypotheses… to make the most sense we can of what we experience.” (Pg. 104-105)
He clarifies, “such faith does not mean the suspension of critical thinking… You might be entirely entitled to believe in religion X… But if you run up against challenges … the intelligent person is obliged to pay attention to them… So we face the final question. Can I believe? This book, and others like it, can provide at best only INTELLECTUAL warrants… They cannot prove the truth of Christianity or of any other religion beyond a reasonable doubt, since… some of the most basic matters discussed in most religions are complex beyond any total explanation, let alone complete truth… we each are influenced by what we perceive to be in our own best interest to believe is the truth.” (Pg. 110-111)
He suggests, “Apologetics… ought to be a part of every program of Christian education, whether I the home or in the church. Doubts about Christian affirmations arise naturally in the course of living in this world… Apologetical arguments properly can help strengthen a Christian’s confidence… apologetics can not only perform the ‘negative’ act… of clearing away impediments… but apologetics also can perform the positive act of offering winsome inducements to the inquirer… I conclude that the various forms of Christian resistance to apologetics have resulted from over-emphasis or misconstruals of the nature of the Christian faith…” (Pg. 118, 120, 127) Later, he adds “Fundamentally, then, apologetics is about winning the friend, not the argument. We offer apologetics in service of Christian friends, to encourage their faith. We also do so in the service of those who are not Christians, to encourage their interest.” (Pg. 141)
He acknowledges, “we should have sympathy as we appreciate the strangeness of Christianity. It is, let’s be honest, an odd religion… most Christians… agree on the basic tenets and practices of the Christian religion. The problem is that some of those tenets are literally inexplicable, such as how God can be both three and one in the Trinity; or how this God became truly human in Jesus Christ; or how the suffering and dying of this one individual on the Cross can possibly atone for the sins of the world. Why… would anyone believe such a set of propositions when even the greatest theologians do not claim to understand them?” (Pg. 162-163)
He states, “Since the heart of God’s revelation of himself is the figure of Jesus Christ, and since the heart of the Christian story of salvation is the career of Jesus Christ, Christian apologetics… rightly focuses on Jesus Christ. The heart of the Christian religion is personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is this to which apologists hope to point their neighbors.” (Pg. 189) Later, he adds, “We must not reduce God’s mission to the world… simply to the verbal articulation of a gospel digest for them to accept or reject. Instead, let us love our neighbors as best we can each moment according to the need and opportunity.” (Pg. 203)
He summarizes, “It may be… that so many people in our communities today generally are NOT deeply interested in what Christians have to say theologically and philosophically. Since the Christian message fundamentally is an invitation extended to human beings… to encounter and embrace the person of Jesus Christ… it is then obvious that establishing the plausibility and credibility of that message will depend upon more than intellectual argument. It will depend instead upon the Holy Spirit of God shining out…” (Pg. 226)
He concludes, “For all we know, we MIGHT BE WRONG about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. That whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly. But what we THINK we know does point in a single direction: to the claims of the gospel. And on the basis of what we think we know… we offer to our neighbors in apologetics the Truth, the Goodness, and the Beauty we think we have found. We do so in the firm hope… that the gospel of life-changing blessing will bless them, too.” (Pg. 232)
If you want an apologetics book that gives “60-second answers to skeptics’ arguments,” this is not that book. But if you want a thoughtful Evangelical discussion of the principles or “philosophy” of Apologetics, this book will be “must reading.”
September 29, 2011
Stackhouse was raised with the same sort of apologetics I was weaned on and I appreciate his alternative approach. "Apologetics is best understood as developing one's authentic self so as to present one's faith as helpfully as possible to one's neighbor." He does a good job of describing the popular and intellectual world of today (of science and reason and postmodernity and consumerism). For him apologetics contributes "toward people's maturation in Christ - what Christian tradition has sometimes called conversion." The work is God's, "our goal is to help our neighbors to be fully converted into all God wants them to be."
To set the groundwork for conversion he discusses the meaning and place of religion generally in our culture and what might make assent to religious claims plausible. Then he discusses how to approach the apologetic task. The book is a philosophy of apologetics rather than a particular, sure-fire approach. It is appealing because it is humble in its claims and discourse, but insistent on the centrality of Jesus and the goodness, truth, and beauty of the Christian message.
To set the groundwork for conversion he discusses the meaning and place of religion generally in our culture and what might make assent to religious claims plausible. Then he discusses how to approach the apologetic task. The book is a philosophy of apologetics rather than a particular, sure-fire approach. It is appealing because it is humble in its claims and discourse, but insistent on the centrality of Jesus and the goodness, truth, and beauty of the Christian message.
January 5, 2025
I found this to be a great read, despite not being religious, it is not unfair to say that Stackhouse is very good at humbling apologetics.
Altough the book was published in the early 2000s, a lot of what Stackhouse is saying can be applied to the contemporary Church. There is simply a huge cultural disconnect between the public and Christianity, one that seems to grow stronger every year, as well as one that the Church is failing to address. Christianity seems to be stuck in this limbo of trying to appease a younger liberal audience, while mainting good standing with more conservative crowds, a move which is actively harming their follower-based.
Stackhouse addresses the reader as if they are a Christian many a time throughout the book. Which I find slightly funny, as his whole schtick is about trying to grow the faith but he acts as if it would not actually grow to the point where non-Christians are reading the book.
Altough the book was published in the early 2000s, a lot of what Stackhouse is saying can be applied to the contemporary Church. There is simply a huge cultural disconnect between the public and Christianity, one that seems to grow stronger every year, as well as one that the Church is failing to address. Christianity seems to be stuck in this limbo of trying to appease a younger liberal audience, while mainting good standing with more conservative crowds, a move which is actively harming their follower-based.
Stackhouse addresses the reader as if they are a Christian many a time throughout the book. Which I find slightly funny, as his whole schtick is about trying to grow the faith but he acts as if it would not actually grow to the point where non-Christians are reading the book.
January 9, 2019
I am new to the world of apologetic method, but this book was a brilliant introduction. Stackhouse's expertise in the realm of epistemology certainly comes through in this text.
If you are looking for a book that answers all of your questions - this is the wrong book. However, if you are looking for a book that answers all of your questions - this might be a good place to start. Stackhouse makes a compelling case for the place of Christian apologetics in contemporary culture. All the while, he reminds his readers that the final posture of the Christian apologist must always be one of humility - a posture that he quite obviously assumes in his own writing.
If you are looking for a book that answers all of your questions - this is the wrong book. However, if you are looking for a book that answers all of your questions - this might be a good place to start. Stackhouse makes a compelling case for the place of Christian apologetics in contemporary culture. All the while, he reminds his readers that the final posture of the Christian apologist must always be one of humility - a posture that he quite obviously assumes in his own writing.
August 8, 2017
I found this a profoundly thought-provoking (intermediate level?) book. I loved his broad definition of apologetics, his summaries of cultural thought & different approaches, & his desire for generosity, love & good listening. However, two major concerns: (I) I found the language used in relation to epistemological certainty confusing, & his definition of humility seems to extend beyond scepticism about ourselves to scepticism about truth itself; (II) he displays great faith in God's providential work in salvation but perhaps at the expense of missional urgency.
December 12, 2022
Stackhouse is a solid academic and thoughtful in his presentation. There is a lot of great interaction within this volume in realizing how to love our neighbor, even in intellect. Nothing but eye rolls for the several reviews that are like, but Christianity is supposed to make people mad (add an out-of-context scripture quote)... end. I always have students ask me for a good solid guide on apologetic reasoning. Glad I can point them out a bit here.
April 19, 2019
A helpful primer to apologetics. It's comprehensive and deals with prevalent worldviews, mainline approaches. It's rather conversational and I can see the wealth of experience the author has had with apologetics. There are loads to references to chase also. It is all humbly conveyed which I like.
December 1, 2020
This book was thoroughly engrossing and really helpful! It's definitely quite complex at times and I could have used more of the practical examples, but philosophically I loved his points.
February 12, 2021
This was really good. I highly recommend it. Really good thoughts and insights on approaching conversations with people. Even though it was published in 2002, it has a lot of relevancy.
August 10, 2013
Stackhouse is amusing, fair, and helpful in this little book about how to do apologetics in a pluralistic world. He does a nice of job of generally addressing critiques that came to my mind early in the book with chapters later on, and I always admire that in a writer. His tight summary of the state of the post-modern world and how western culture got to where it is intellectually speaking is excellent. If you're looking for a textbook for a class on Christian social engagement or apologetics, this brief summary would serve students well.
His call for epistemological humility (not trying to claim ABSOLUTE knowledge about anything but rather always admitting to our conversation partners that we could be wrong) strikes me as philosophically sound and missionally astute, but not entirely biblical. It's difficult for me to imagine one of the apostles recognizing, "To the best of my knowledge, Jesus is Lord, and while that's probably true, I could be wrong about it" as an authentic message of faith. A friend suggested that what was need was not a humble apologetic but humble apologists with a bold apology. Still, that's a bit of a quibble, and Stackhouse isn't advocating relativism so much as good sense and fair play in conversations. Moreover, he does provide a solid theological defense of his call for uncertainty by rooting such humility in the fall.
Highly Recommended.
His call for epistemological humility (not trying to claim ABSOLUTE knowledge about anything but rather always admitting to our conversation partners that we could be wrong) strikes me as philosophically sound and missionally astute, but not entirely biblical. It's difficult for me to imagine one of the apostles recognizing, "To the best of my knowledge, Jesus is Lord, and while that's probably true, I could be wrong about it" as an authentic message of faith. A friend suggested that what was need was not a humble apologetic but humble apologists with a bold apology. Still, that's a bit of a quibble, and Stackhouse isn't advocating relativism so much as good sense and fair play in conversations. Moreover, he does provide a solid theological defense of his call for uncertainty by rooting such humility in the fall.
Highly Recommended.
May 11, 2011
Can I do 3.5 stars? Alas, no. But I will round up in order to commend it to more people. Yes, he probably puts too much of a distance between faith and real knowledge. Though I am quite sure he knows exactly what he is saying about that and more so than I myself to adequately critique him. Yes, he probably is not enough of an advocate for some people's preferred style of apologetics... whether classical or presuppositional. In the end, this accomplishes what the author set out to do, talk about HOW apologetics should be done. For that, he has accomplished a great deal and even has some humbly stinging comments about how it is often done, whether in debates, conversations, or even in preaching. On the whole this is a very good book. It is comprehensive in its scope of the methods and use of apologetics. It is also and more importantly so, comprehensive in giving an ethic of apologetic or evangelistic engagement with people.
March 18, 2014
John G. Stackhouse's "Humble Apologetics" is a detailed and scholarly exposition on how faithful Christians can practice apologetics in a postmodern world. The book does not address apologetics questions; rather, it provides a framework in which believers can engage their friends and neighbours by providing what answers they can to their questions and doubts. Stackhouse analyzes contemporary Western culture and the values that dominate culture (e.g. consumerism, tolerance) and provides helpful discourses on traditional apologetics methods (e.g. appealing to reason). Stackhouse soberly warns Christians that it is ultimately God who can bring someone to faith through His Spirit and that it is the Christian's role to participate with God in this process. The one contention I have with Stackhouse is that he denies that we can have absolute certainty of anything (is he certain of that?). All in all, a valuable contribution to the field of apologetics.
November 16, 2013
Excellent book on apologetics in this age. All 3 sections of these books are very relevant and practical. Part one talks about challenges facing Christianity today: pluralism, postmodernism, rationalism and consumerism. Like especially the chapter on consumerism - well-written. Part Two tells us about the process of conversion and the role apologetics play. The most insightful part is part three as the writers offers practical guidelines on apologetic, sensitive to present day culture and the person whom we engages. Chapter 10 on other modes of apologetics even provide a wide array of means we can adopt for apologetics. At the end of the day, like wat the conclusion summarises, as much as we want to tell people the truth, we need to be humble epistemologically, rhetorically and spiritually.
August 11, 2012
an excellent book on Apologetics. I especially appreciated Stackhouse's explanation of the current ideologies within society in America - postmodernism, pluralism, multiculturalism, and consumerism. I like his style of writing, it is not dumbed down yet easy to ready. He kept my interest throughout the book! I definitely would recommend this book to someone interested in learning more about Apologetics especially in today's society.
June 16, 2015
A very helpful perspective on apologetics that takes it out of the realm of the super-intellectual and helps us see it as something we all can and should do. Stackhouse paints a clear picture of the world (Western) that we live in and helps us understand why speaking about the Christian Faith can be so hard today. However, his push for the humble and personal yet intelligent touch, is a great challenge for all Christians today.
July 14, 2009
This is one of those books that grabbed my attention immediately, but after a few hundred pages lost my interest. Needless to say, I did not finish the book. I will say that this book with be a helpful edition to other apologetic books that answer many current debates. I imagine that I will refer to it often in the future.
January 7, 2008
non-offensive, but firm apologetics
September 12, 2010
What do you know? An apologetic that begins with, "I don't know everything."
April 28, 2017
Admittedly academic in the first half, where I struggled for awhile, the second was easier to absorb. Regardless of one's attention span (mine? not always awesome), the book is sound and worth reading. One of the most encouraging books on apologetics I've read.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews