Since my first reading of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity shortly after my conversion to Christ in 1985, I have made a point of presenting Christianity as an intellectually compelling, logically coherent and practically relevant belief system. This personal tendency toward apologetics is likely due to the fact that I am so prone to doubts and nearly incessant second-guessing myself that I naturally empathize with atheists, agnostics and others as guilty of unbelief as I am. In that sense, apologetics is arguably one of the highest forms of compassion: Attempting to kindly and patiently convince skeptical, sometimes openly hostile unbelievers of the reality of God's salvation is a reflection, albeit somewhat dim, of the gracious, redemptive character of God himself. I've been advised by certain well-meaning preachers not to "waste my time" arguing with unbelievers, as their unbelief is a sin. Yes it is, but the gospel message is that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). If striving to convince skeptics to believe in God is a waste of time, so is counseling a heavy drinker to put down the bottle, or trying to talk sense to a stubborn husband sure that all the problems in his marriage are his wife's fault. My own faith (or lack thereof) at various times has resembled that of the apostle Thomas, marked by a timid uncertainty, a sensitivity to peer criticism and an almost shameful willingness to accept any authoritatively stated opinion presented in college texts or science journals as indisputable fact. Intelligent, sensitive and sincere potential believers just like Thomas abound in the postmodern era - and since equally intelligent, and aggressive, often ideologically driven unbelievers abound as well, there remains a need in the church for articulate, outspoken, uncompromising, yet compassionate defenders of the faith.
None of this is to say that I regard myself a great Christian apologist or an authority on apologetics. To the contrary, I do not enjoy the credentials or experience of a J.P. Moreland or a William Lane Craig in debating with highly intelligent, erudite skeptics, including graduate students in physics, science professionals and at least a few college professors. (I have been called on one site the "best apologist," and on another "the best creationist debater I've ever enountered," so I do know something about all this stuff.) However, my calling from God - to present the gospel in a compelling manner to a skeptical world - is as valid as theirs. Besides, there are only so many Morelands and Craigs to go around. As always, the largest share of the burden of ministry falls on ordinary believers. Christians are often too intimidated by secular science and worldly philosophy to take up the challenge, leaving vast regions of what I call intellectual space - in universities, high schools, and now the Internet - largely untouched by the gospel. One of my main purposes in publishing this site and making my debates available is to demonstrate that a relative novice can wield considerable influence with educated unbelievers if willing to study the issues, be bold, dare to make a few honest mistakes, promptly admit to those mistakes, get back on the offensive, and seek to glorify God through the entire process. God's existence is not contingent upon our arguments, and I am convinced that he is willing to place his representatives in the arena of intellectual discourse without yet possessing his own attributes of perfection or omniscience. God will be glorified one way or another.
I would like to think that my own experience debating with unbelievers on the internet, in places such as "A Christian vs Atheist Club" (Yahoo!) and newsgroups such as "alt.atheism" and "talk.origins" (Google), mirrors that of C.S. Lewis as a regular combatant in the Socratic Club, a public debate club at Oxford created in the forties for the intellectual defense of Christianity. Lewis remarked on the nature of the Christian's battle with the skeptical community in the Preface to the first Socratic Digest (1942-43): "We never claimed to be impartial. But argument is. It has a life of its own. We expose ourselves, and the weakest of our party, to your fire no less than you are exposed to ours... The arena is common to both parties and cannot finally be cheated." Likewise, the arguments presented on this site are not typical or predictable canned arguments in some sort of "How to Answer a Skeptic" book, but actual arguments, in response to actual unbelievers expressing their own undiluted opinions in an open forum.
On the other hand, I would hesitate to reduce debate with unbelievers to some sort of pitched battle or an act of spiritual warfare. War connotes violence and has as its chief objective breaking the will of the enemy to resist, by whatever means necessary. Yet atheists, agnostics, relativists and the like are not the enemy. Jesus was often accused of rubbing shoulders with tax-collectors, prostitutes and sinners. Could this be because he really liked them, respected them as people created in the image of God, and seriously considered what they were actually saying instead of casually dismissing or debunking their beliefs? Make no mistake, Jesus loved those who disagreed with him and doubted him. As a follower of Christ and a "fisher of men," I've found that compassion and understanding go a lot further than insults and obfuscation. Even when the fish aren't biting, so to speak, Christians are still encouraged to find their fellow believers boldly challenging their secular opponents in debate. So the practice of apologetics serves to edify the church as well as challenge the world.
In the course of debating, defending and discussing Christianity, I came up with a number of what I call "Don's Rules of Apologetic Discourse." I would strongly urge any aspiring apologists to take these to heart:
1. Be respectful. Men are made in the image of God, and Jesus died for every one of them. Skeptics do not necessarily even believe in "love" per se, but they do generally respond well to overtures of respect. That means, among other things, acknowledging valid points, passing up opportunities for insults, and refusing to gloat over your own perceived victories.
2. Be honest. Vocal unbelievers are usually well-educated, especially in the natural sciences, and once in a while they may catch you in an error or misstatement of fact. If you find yourself in the wrong, you'll retain more credibility if you swallow your pride and concede to the facts. In this way, you can exhibit some genuine humility and learn something new at the same time. I believe it was A.J. Toynbee who said, "The only purpose for debates is to learn. Or at least it's the only purpose that makes any sense."
3. Be original. Many members of the skepical community are well-versed in C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell, but they've probably never heard of you. Tell them what you think; you may surprise them with a carefully thought out response of your own.
4. Pay attention. Likewise, freethinking unbelievers may have something to say that you haven't read in a primer on apologetics. A well-rehearsed knee-jerk response is not always appropriate, or even relevant to what was said.
5. Do your homework. Find out what the leading intellectuals are saying. If atheists keep bringing up Richard Dawkins' theory of cumulative natural selection or Stephen Hawking's take on the strong anthropic principle, read up on it. Learn the basics of logic and logical fallacies. Try not to contradict yourself or circumvent the real issues.
6. Remember your audience. One irrational, overly antagonistic critic won't spoil the whole bunch. Chances are good that other people - unbelievers leaning toward faith and believers struggling with doubts - will be looking on with interest. Socrates never taught the proud, aggressive Thrasymachus much of anything, but in debating Thrasymachus he revealed many truths to many others.
It has been said that what a man puts to paper is what he really believes. Many overriding themes have emerged the past few years' worth of posting messages: naturalism and supernaturalism; epistemology, metaphysics and faith; history and science; evolutionary theory; and especially volition, or freedom of the will. Much space has been taken in my debates with discussions of obedience and faith as acts of the will. Calvinist readers are sure to be disappointed with my take on all this. Some may regard me as a heretic, an advocate of Arminianism or perhaps even Pelagianism. As it happens, I do agree with Pelagius about the character of God: "He has not willed to command anything impossible, for he is righteous; and he will not condemn a man for what he could not help, for he is holy." Speaking for many of his comrades in citing a letter written by a recent "convert" to atheism to his father, an atheist on the Christian vs Atheist Club argued: "Belief is not something a person decides to do - belief is something a person experiences as a result of what he or she knows." I couldn't disagree more. In my mind, the free will to decide for oneself is one of the greatest of God's gifts and the highest expression of his love. Free will resolves a number of otherwise inexplicable philosophical-theological paradoxes having to do with orignal sin, the so-called Problem of Evil and eternal destination. And for a Christian, believing in free will means allowing unbelievers to continue in their unbelief, rather than continually "pressing for a decision." It means allowing atheists to "save face" rather than rubbing their noses in the truth until they concede. It also means letting these same atheists know that they can choose to believe in God and be saved and forgiven just like anyone else.
Jesus apparently regarded free will highly; he explained his method of teaching in parables in terms of selective disclosure of truth, not to be given to those having no appetite for it, "so that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them'" (Mark 4:11-12). Of course, this Scripture could be interpreted as a declaration of divine prejudice in favor of the "chosen ones," assuring perpetual exclusion of the unbelieving community from any hope of heaven. This would be a singularly bad interpretation, ignoring not only the immediate context of Mark 4 - in which Jesus is teaching "a great multitude" and not merely the twelve disciples - but much related Scripture. Jesus made it clear elsewhere that we all believe what we want to believe, and thus, in a sense, we get just what we want: "According to your faith let it be to you" (Matt. 9:29). On the other hand, my own interpretation of Scripture rests on the working assumption that Scripture offers a fairly coherent message of salvation and the God described therein is an impartial judge of men. It could just be that the critics are right: that the Bible is loaded with irreconcilable contradictions and the God presented on its pages is an insecure, capricious, sadistic tyrant, so that when Jesus seemed to be urging unbelievers to "repent and believe the gospel" he was really just entertaining the disciples with a cruel inside joke. Of course, I may choose either of these interpretations. And the fact that I may choose either interpretation further validates my claim that free will is a reality - the only reality that now separates men from God. "Many are called," said Christ, "but few are chosen." God is calling us to himself. The choice to believe him is ours.