Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 3.2
What you will learn
- Separate the content of a hostile objection from its tone.
- Find the argument inside an angry or contemptuous challenge.
- Reply calmly to the argument without matching the hostility.
- Judge when a hostile objection deserves a reply and when it does not.
The big idea
Some objections to the faith arrive with anger, sarcasm or contempt. Hostility is unpleasant, but it is not the same as bad faith. An angry person may still have raised a real argument, and sometimes the anger comes from real wrongs done by Christians. The discipline is to look past the tone for the claim, to answer the claim honestly, and to keep your own tone steady. You are not required to accept abuse, but you should not let rudeness excuse you from answering a good point.
Key terms
- Hostile objection
- A challenge to belief delivered with anger, ridicule or contempt.
- Tone
- The attitude conveyed by how something is said, as distinct from what is said.
- Content
- The claim or argument contained in what is said.
- Provocation
- Words or actions meant to make someone angry or defensive.
- De-escalation
- Lowering the emotional temperature of a conversation.
- Meekness
- Gentle and controlled strength, a quality the New Testament urges on believers (Galatians 5:23).
- Proverbial wisdom
- Short sayings of the Book of Proverbs that guide judgment, such as the teaching that a soft answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1).
Background
Christians have been mocked since the beginning. A well-known ancient example is a graffito from Rome, probably from the second or third century, that shows a man worshipping a crucified figure with a donkey’s head. Early apologists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen answered pagan accusations, some of them cruel and false, including charges of atheism and immorality. Origen’s reply to the critic Celsus is long and takes Celsus’ arguments seriously even though Celsus was often scornful.
The New Testament speaks to this situation. Jesus teaches love for enemies (Matthew 5:44). Peter writes that believers should not return reviling for reviling but blessing (1 Peter 3:9). Proverbs says that a soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger (Proverbs 15:1). The apostle Paul asks that no corrupt speech come from the mouth, but only what builds up (Ephesians 4:29). These texts do not ask Christians to be passive. They ask them to be steady.
Hostility is also sometimes earned. Churches and Christians have done harm, and some angry critics have been victims. A reply that begins by admitting real failures is often more effective than one that begins by defending. This lesson treats hostility as a challenge to character as well as to argument.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Pause before replying
Anger is catching. If you feel your pulse rise, wait. Take a breath, or in written exchanges, wait an hour or a day. James advises that the believer be swift to hear, slow to speak and slow to wrath (James 1:19). A reply written in anger will usually need to be retracted.
In spoken settings, a brief pause is fine. You can say, ‘Let me think about that.’ The pause is a form of respect for the question.
Step 2: Extract the claim
Remove the insults and ask what is being asserted. ‘Only an idiot believes in a book written by Bronze Age goat herders’ contains a claim about the age and origin of the Bible and an implied claim that ancient authorship makes a text unreliable. Those can be addressed. The insult cannot.
State the claim back in neutral words: ‘You are saying that because the Bible is ancient, it cannot be trusted. Is that right?’ This often calms the speaker, because it shows that the point has been heard.
Step 3: Answer the claim, not the tone
Give a brief, direct reply to the claim: that ancient texts vary in reliability, that historians assess each on its merits, and that the question must be asked of this text. You may name the tone once, calmly: ‘I would like to talk about this, and it will help to leave out the insults.’ Do not lecture about manners at length.
Avoid mirroring. Sarcasm answered with sarcasm gives the other side the conversation it wanted.
Step 4: Concede what is fair
Hostile critics are sometimes partly right. If someone says that Christians have used religion to excuse cruelty, the honest answer includes agreement that this has happened and that it contradicts the teaching of Jesus. Then you can say what you think follows and what does not.
A concession signals that you care more about truth than about winning, which is the best answer to hostility.
Step 5: Decide whether to continue
Some hostile people become reasonable once they are heard. Others will not. If the exchange yields only abuse after a good-faith attempt, it is permissible to stop courteously (see the later lessons on bad faith and disengagement). Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust from their feet when they were not received (Matthew 10:14).
Stopping is not defeat. It is a judgment that further words will not help.
- What is the claim inside this challenge, stripped of insults?
- What wrong, real or imagined, might lie behind the anger?
- Am I about to reply out of anger or out of a wish to help?
- Is there anything in this criticism that is fair, and have I said so?
- Does my reply meet the argument without matching the tone?
- Have I given a good-faith attempt before deciding to stop?
Examples
Finding the argument
A commenter writes, ‘You people are brainwashed. Show me one shred of evidence for the resurrection, if you can.’ Stripped of tone: the commenter wants evidence for the resurrection and doubts that any exists. A calm reply names two or three lines of evidence that scholars discuss, such as early reports (1 Corinthians 15:3 to 15:8), and notes that scholars disagree about how to interpret them. (Constructed example.)
Conceding the fair part
A critic says that Christians persecuted heretics and Jews. A fair reply: ‘That did happen, and it was wrong. Many Christians then and since have condemned it as contrary to the gospel. Let me say what I think that history does and does not show about the truth of the faith.’ (Constructed example.)
Not mirroring
A person mocks a believer’s prayer. The believer replies, ‘I can see this seems foolish to you. I am glad to explain why I pray if you are interested, and if not, I will leave it there.’ The tone stays steady and the door stays open. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Early church tradition (Catholic and Orthodox)
Early apologists such as Justin, Tertullian and Origen answered hostile critics in writing. Origen’s Against Celsus is notable for quoting and answering the critic at length. Fathers also stress that martyrs answered abuse with patience.
Catholic thought
Catholic teaching on dialogue, including the Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and on religious liberty, asks Catholics to meet others with respect even when they disagree sharply.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox ascetic writers stress guarding the heart against anger. Many warn that a person who argues in anger loses what he hoped to defend.
Protestant thought
Protestant tradition includes both sharp polemic, such as in the Reformation, and calls for gentleness. Modern Protestant writers often cite 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:24 to say that firmness in truth should go with courtesy.
Secular and scholarly view
Studies of conflict suggest that people respond to being heard before they respond to arguments, and that calm restatement lowers hostility. Many hostile critics of religion say that rude believers confirmed their views.
Why it matters
Hostile objections are where the character of an apologist is most visible. A calm answer to a bitter challenge can persuade onlookers who say nothing. It also protects you from becoming bitter yourself. And it keeps you honest about whether the hostility had any ground, since angry people are sometimes right about something.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: A hostile person is never worth answering.
Correction: Often the anger hides a real argument or a real wound. A good-faith attempt is usually worth making. If it fails, you may stop.
Misunderstanding: Staying calm means never being firm.
Correction: A calm tone can carry firm content. You can disagree strongly without insult.
Misunderstanding: Matching the opponent’s tone shows strength.
Correction: It usually shows that the opponent controlled the conversation. Scripture repeatedly commends restraint (Proverbs 15:1; 1 Peter 3:9).
Misunderstanding: All hostility toward Christians is persecution.
Correction: Some is, and some is a response to real harm done by Christians or to the manner in which they spoke. Honest assessment is needed.
Knowledge check
How do you find the argument inside a hostile objection?
Remove the insults and sarcasm and ask what is being claimed and why. Restate it in neutral words and check with the speaker. The claim, such as that ancient texts are unreliable or that Christians have done harm, can then be answered on its merits.
Why is a pause before replying useful?
Anger distorts judgment and escalates conflict. A pause lets you separate content from tone and choose your words. James 1:19 advises being swift to hear and slow to speak and to wrath. In writing, waiting an hour or a day often prevents an unwise reply.
When should you concede part of a hostile criticism?
Whenever part of it is true. Christians have done real wrong, and admitting it is honest. A concession should be accurate and limited: it grants the fair point and then explains what follows and what does not. It often reduces hostility because the critic feels heard.
What do Proverbs 15:1 and 1 Peter 3:9 teach about replying to hostility?
Proverbs 15:1 says a soft answer turns away wrath, while harsh words stir anger. First Peter 3:9 says not to return abuse for abuse but to bless. Together they urge restraint and kindness, which are consistent with firmness about the truth.
Is it ever right to stop engaging a hostile person?
Yes, after a good-faith attempt that produces only abuse. Jesus tells his disciples to move on when they are not received (Matthew 10:14). Stopping courteously is a judgment about what will help, not a failure. The following lessons discuss how to do it.
Think it through
- What kinds of mockery are hardest for you to hear without answering back?
- Has a hostile criticism of Christianity ever turned out to be partly correct?
- How does tone shape how onlookers judge an exchange?
- What would help you pause before replying in anger?
Independent assignment
Finding the argument
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Collect or invent three hostile objections to the Christian faith (label any you invent as constructed). For each, strip the tone and state the underlying claim in one neutral sentence. Write a calm reply of about 80 words that answers the claim, concedes anything fair, and leaves out any insult. Then write a paragraph on which of the three would be hardest for you to answer calmly, and why. Keep this private.
Further study
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology Read the early chapters to see how Justin replies to hostile charges against Christians.
- Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics A sharper style of early Christian argument. Read selectively and compare its tone with Justin’s.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals A famous hostile critique. Read a section to practice extracting the argument from the tone.
- Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion A critique of religion to practice stating fairly. Read selectively.
- Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath.
- 1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil.
- James 1:19 Swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.