The trouble with apologists

 Please excuse the stereotyping in which I'm about to dabble. I'll try and correct it toward the end. It's just more fun to criticize without qualifiers.

Do apologists ever annoy you, or is it just me?

A couple nights ago I was flipping through some apologetics literature (of the conservative Protestant variety). In particular, the apologists were defending the inerrancy of the Bible: the doctrine that the Bible, being God's word, is 100% without error in its original manuscripts whether concerning matters of faith and practice, history or science, and whether in what it teaches or what it merely "touches on". This contrasts with the view that the Bible is "infallible but not inerrant", the school of thought that the Bible is authoritative and absolutely trustworthy in matters of faith and practice, but should not be looked to as the gold standard in matters of, say, history or science, concerning which it might contain errors.

For my part, I'd rather not have to claim allegiance to one label or the other. I affirm that whatever a passage of scripture is meant to communicate must be true (without drawing boundaries as to which academic departments it has permission to speak to). But I'm presently shakier on the subject of secondary inferences (i.e. things arguably "touched on") especially where they seem unrelated to faith and practice. I sometimes feel people try to look to the Bible for authority in ways, matters and details that maybe God isn't actually speaking to. Frankly I get nervous sometimes reading the Bible, sensing legend and myth in some places but wondering if it's okay for me to interpret it that way.

So as I read these apologetics books, the pages glared back at me with a dogmatic tone of convicted orthodoxy.  I sensed an insinuation that Jesus himself stood behind the apologist's litigious shoulder casting his righteous glare upon me in all my free-thinking and intransigent presumptuousness. Why did I refuse to accept their arguments? Surely some sinful sacrilege, some heinous heresy, some fetid faithlessness lurketh within mine heart, callousing it unto the truth!

Well, and for sooth mayhaps some such foulor doth indeed lurk therein. It's both tempting and foolish to laugh off that kind of possibility. It is also quite possible that the apologist I was reading wouldn't mean to project the sort of attitude I sense from the page. But my focus here is the result in the reader, not the intent of the writer.

Recently I watched a TED talk about listening better (http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_5_ways_to_listen_better.html). Among the fellow's recommendations was to pay attention to different positions you might take in your listening. One of the pairs of stances he mentioned was critical / empathetic.

I often get the sense in reading theological arguments that the writer listens to his or her opponents with a strictly critical stance; when they articulate oposing arguments, they make little effort to show that they can empathize with where their opponents are coming from. I think this can be problematic. To their credit, often the apologists need to favor a critical stance; what they criticize or fight often needs serious fighting. And in the Bible, prophets, apostles, and Jesus all often dispute error sharply without any apparent empathetic concession, and I take it they were right to do so. Maybe they too would have irritated me. Especially if I'm like most of the folks they rebuked.

So what's the problem? The problem is in building trust. If I don't think you really understand where I'm coming from, I'm liable to question whether you really know the solution to where I'm coming from as well as you may think you do. This adds on top of the emotional knee-jerk reaction that if somebody's just flat out attacking me (and attacking my notions can sure feel like attacking me) they must be my enemy, someone to be resisted and (ideally) defeated. And that emotional reaction can be difficult to completely tame. The difficulty in taming it is no excuse for not trying, but mightn't it be preferable in general for the arguer to make it less of a challenge?

Another barrier to trust has to do with assumptions. Apologists tend to assume some conviction a priori and then look for arguments in their favor to use for persuading others. They may be justified in doing so, but in principle this approach makes me trust them less. I've encountered apologist types not only of the conservative Protestant fold, but also of Catholic, Mormon, and Islamic varieties, and more often than not, I've come away impressed. It's my sense that skilled debaters can generate fine-sounding arguments for all sorts of conflicting views, even arguments that are difficult to debunk or see through. Now suppose I assume neither that the apologist's conviction is correct or incorrect, but would like to learn the truth of things. Their arguments don't carry as much weight with me as the reasoning of somebody who confronted the issue with an open mind would: in the event that the apologist's assumption is wrong,  they're highly biased to be blind to their fault, and probably capable of doing a fine job defending it. They're much more like lawyers or politicians than witnesses or scientists.

It helps if I can have arguments presented by both sides and see them interact with each other. It also helps if the arguers admit victories for the other side, things they don't understand, and mistakes of their own. Though that might count against them in front of a shallow audience, it is evidence that they are humble people who realize their thinking is fallible and who value honesty and learning. And those values are cause for trust. I'm more inclined to put energy into open-mindedly working through arguments from that sort of person than to bother listening hard to someone who exudes proud confidence but seems presumptuous in their understanding of others (except maybe for the questionable pleasure of trying to show why they're wrong).

Now, stepping back, I should acknowledge that not all apologists fit the negative portrait I've drawn. Take for instance my friend Peter Payne (whose website may be found at www.crediblechristianity.org), who has worked for years as a professional Christian apologist. He tends to show an understanding of various sides of a given controversy. He comes across as respectful, and though he is very knowledgeable and credentialed, he doesn't intimidate or belittle. He admits to finding some questions people use to poke at Christianity personally challenging, the sorts of things he has some answers to offer, but admits to not being completely satisfied with the answers he has. If he persuades, it is through things like careful reasoning and evidence, not his own charisma. I really appreciate and respect all that. I've also read apologetics books by Brian McLaren (A Search for What Makes Sense) and Timothy Keller (The Reason for God) that lacked the annoying aura I've been clawing at. I bet McLaren dislikes it even more than I do, but that's a subject for another blog.

 Before wrapping up, I want to make clear what I'm saying, and what I'm not saying. Assuming the audience is unconvinced of the apologist's claim, and would like to learn the truth of the matter...

* A lack of empathetic consideration of opposing arguments and perspectives reduces an audience's trust, and it should.
* That same lack encourages a spirit of close-minded animosity in an audience (whether it should or not).
* Producing arguments to support a priori commitments reduces an audience's trust, and it should.
* Note, however, that neither of these factors serve to dispute an apologist's argument itself; arguing that someone's argument is wrong because you don't trust the messenger is a fallacy.
* Note also that I am not saying an empathetic consideration is always necessary,
* I am also not saying that people should be perpetually open-minded to all controversial suggestions (though personally I'm not a big fan of dogmatism).

So what are your reactions? Does anyone resonate? Or want to share a contrasting point of view? If you resonate with the annoyance over apologists, did my clawings scratch the nail on the head, or are there other factors in the trouble with apologists?