Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 6.5
What you will learn
- Adapt the fair-reply methods of earlier lessons to a public, written or recorded setting.
- Write a short reply to an atheistic, a secular and an other-Christian objection.
- Decide whether a given objection should be answered publicly, privately or not at all.
- Draft a reply and hold it back, so that you choose later whether to share it.
The big idea
This lesson belongs to an optional subunit and is the culmination of its exercises. All the drafting can be done privately, and a student may stop at the draft, which is a perfectly good outcome. The three kinds of objection call for different replies. Atheistic arguments want reasons, secular moral critiques want honesty about history and about the grounds of morality, and objections from other Christians want accurate knowledge of tradition and charity. A public reply is shorter, seen by more people and harder to retract, so it needs more care, not less.
Key terms
- Public reply
- A response written or spoken where others can see it, such as a comment, post, article or talk.
- Draft
- A written version that is not yet shared and can be revised or discarded.
- Cooling period
- A set interval, such as a day, between writing a reply and deciding to share it.
- Audience
- The people who will actually read or hear a reply, including onlookers who never respond.
- Retraction
- A public correction of something you said that was mistaken.
- Scope
- How much a reply tries to cover. A narrow, modest scope usually serves a public reply best.
Background
Optional note: nothing in this lesson requires you to share anything. Writing a draft and deciding not to publish it is a complete and wise use of the exercise. The program is for private study and neither collects nor reviews public statements.
Earlier lessons have taught the elements: state the objection fairly, answer the strongest form, concede what is true, mark where Christians differ, separate conviction from doctrine, cite sources and judge whether to continue. A public reply uses all of them in a short space. It also adds new difficulties. The audience includes people who will not respond, and some who are hurt, curious or hostile. The text will remain, may be quoted, and can be misread by those who lack the full context.
The New Testament counsel to give an answer with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15) and to let speech be seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6) applies directly. So does the instruction to know how to answer every person (Colossians 4:6), which implies that the same reply is not right for everyone. This lesson asks you to draft three replies and then consider each one seriously before deciding what to do with it.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Decide whether to reply
Ask five questions before writing. Is this objection sincere, hostile or in bad faith? Am I the right person to answer? Do I know enough? Would a public reply help the person, or only me? Would a private message, a link to a good source or silence be better? Many objections are best left to those with more training, and pointing to them is a good reply.
If you decide to reply, set the scope. A public reply can usually do one thing well: correct a factual error, clear up a misunderstanding or offer one good reason. It cannot settle the whole question.
Step 2: Reply to an atheistic objection
State the objection in a form an atheist would accept. For the problem of evil, say that it is a serious argument, and say what it assumes. Offer one or two Christian responses, name the tradition that holds them and admit that the problem is not fully solved. Avoid attributing bad motives. If the person is grieving, address the grief before the argument.
A short reply might run: ‘That is a serious challenge, and Christians have felt it for a long time. One response, associated with Augustine and many since, is that evil is a corruption of good and not a thing God made. Others point to the value of human freedom. Neither removes the pain, and I do not claim to have a full answer. Here is a source that treats it carefully.’
Step 3: Reply to a secular moral critique
Begin by agreeing with what is true. If the critique concerns a historical wrong, say that it was wrong and that it contradicted the teaching of Christ. Offer facts accurately and without minimizing. Then, if appropriate, ask a real question about the standard by which wrongs are judged, and listen to the answer.
Avoid deflecting by pointing at the wrongs of others. A reply that begins with ‘but atheists have also done terrible things’ is likely to sound defensive and will not help.
Step 4: Reply to an objection from another Christian
Find the objection in the other tradition’s own sources and state it in its own terms. Name what you share before naming the difference. Say clearly that you speak for your own tradition, and avoid claiming that the other is not Christian. Where you do not know the other tradition well, say so.
Public disputes among Christians are especially visible to outsiders. Courtesy here is a form of witness (John 13:35). If the exchange grows heated, move it to a private message or end it.
Step 5: Hold it back, then decide
After writing each draft, wait a day. Then read it as a stranger. Would a thoughtful member of the other side accept your account of their view? Is every claim sourced? Is your tone steady? Is there a sentence you would regret in a year?
Decide to share, to share privately, to revise or to keep it in your notebook. All four are good outcomes. If you decide to share, put your name to it, accept that corrections may come and be ready to retract anything mistaken.
- Should I answer this at all, and am I the right person?
- Have I stated the objection in a form its holder would accept?
- What is the single thing my reply can do well?
- Have I conceded what is true and marked where Christians differ?
- Would I be comfortable if this reply were quoted back to me in a year?
- Is keeping this private the best choice?
Examples
A narrow public reply
A commenter asserts that the Gospels were written centuries after Jesus. A reply: ‘Most scholars date the Gospels between about 65 and 100 CE, within decades of the events, though the dating is debated. Here is a source that sets out the range.’ The reply corrects one fact, cites a source and does not claim to settle the larger question. (Constructed example.)
Choosing not to reply
A person posts a sarcastic insult against all believers. After pausing, the reader decides that the post was bait. She writes a draft in her notebook to clarify her own thoughts and does not respond. She prays for the writer. The exercise had value even though nothing was posted. (Constructed example.)
A courteous reply to another Christian
An Orthodox friend asks why Protestants have no bishops. A Protestant replies: ‘Many Protestants hold that the New Testament uses elder and bishop for the same office (Titus 1:5 and 1:7), and that Scripture does not require a particular order. I know that Orthodox and Catholic Christians read the early evidence differently, and I would like to understand your view better.’ The reply states the reason, acknowledges the difference and invites more. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic thought
Catholic teaching on the laity encourages witness in public life, according to competence and with obedience to the faith of the church. The Church also asks that those who teach publicly in her name be properly prepared, which is a reason to refer hard questions to qualified teachers.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox tradition counsels humility in speaking about theology, and values the blessing and guidance of a spiritual father. Many Orthodox laypeople write and speak publicly, with an awareness that they speak as members and do not define the faith.
Protestant thought
Protestants, emphasizing the priesthood of all believers, often encourage lay witness. Many also warn about quarrelsomeness, citing 2 Timothy 2:23 and 2:24, and stress the accountability of public teachers to their congregations.
Quiet and private traditions
Some Christians, including Quakers, many Anabaptists and contemplative monastics, emphasize witness by life and are cautious about public argument. They hold that some of the most faithful witness is never announced.
Communication scholars
Researchers who study online discussion find that brief, civil replies that correct specific errors can help onlookers even if the original speaker does not change. They also find that long exchanges with hostile participants often escalate.
Why it matters
The aim of this subunit is to prepare a student to answer well if and when the occasion comes, and to help a student see that the preparation has value even if it never leads to public speech. Drafting replies teaches the substance of the earlier lessons in a form that can be tested. It also allows each student to decide, from understanding and not from pressure, how public to be.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Every Christian is obliged to answer every public objection.
Correction: No tradition teaches this. Callings and competence differ, and discretion is often wise.
Misunderstanding: A public reply should say everything.
Correction: A narrow, accurate reply is more useful than a long, scattered one.
Misunderstanding: If I draft a reply, I must post it.
Correction: Drafting is for thinking. Deciding to keep it private is a full and legitimate result.
Misunderstanding: Replying publicly to another Christian is the best way to correct them.
Correction: Jesus advises going first to a person privately (Matthew 18:15). Public correction should be a last resort.
Knowledge check
What five questions should you ask before replying publicly?
Is the objection sincere, hostile or in bad faith? Am I the right person to answer? Do I know enough? Would a reply help the person or only me? Would a private message, a referral or silence serve better? These questions guard against rash and self-serving replies.
How should a reply to an atheistic argument begin?
By stating the argument in a form an atheist would accept and acknowledging its seriousness. Then offer one or two Christian responses, name the traditions that hold them, and admit what remains unresolved. If the person is grieving, address the grief before the argument.
How does Matthew 18:15 bear on replies to other Christians?
It tells a believer who has been wronged to go to the other person privately first. By extension, many Christians hold that correction among believers should begin privately and only later become public. Open disputes also damage the witness of the church to outsiders.
Why use a cooling period before sharing a reply?
Time lets anger fade and gives a chance to reread as a stranger would. You can check accuracy, tone and sources, and notice sentences you may regret. A day is often enough. The delay protects both you and the person you are answering.
Why is keeping a draft private a legitimate outcome?
The drafting itself clarifies your thinking and builds skill. Some objections are not yours to answer, some settings are unsuitable and some traditions favor quiet witness. The program does not require public participation, and a private draft is a complete and useful exercise.
Think it through
- Which of the three kinds of objection would you be most nervous to answer in public?
- Which would you most like to answer well, and why?
- Is there an objection you have a strong urge to answer? What lies behind the urge?
- What would help you decide to stay private, and what would help you decide to speak?
Independent assignment
Three drafts, none required to be shared
In your own notebook, write 700 to 900 words. Draft three short replies of about 150 to 200 words each: one to an atheistic objection, one to a secular moral critique and one to an objection from another Christian tradition. For each, write one sentence stating the objection in its holder’s terms. Wait a day and reread. For each, write whether you would share it, share it privately, revise it or keep it in the notebook, with one reason. Keep all of this private.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil A reliable source to consult before drafting a reply on evil.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity A model of a reasoned reply written for a general audience.
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology An early public reply addressed to a skeptical audience.
- Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction A reference for stating the views of different traditions accurately.
- 1 Peter 3:15 Gentleness and reverence in giving an answer.
- Matthew 18:15 Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.
- John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples.