Apologetics In Conversation

Apologetics in Conversations: Review

I expected the book to be a short but sweet comprehensive guide on apologetics applied in informal debates. What I got is presuppositional apologetics mixed with resentment towards Non-Christians. The title and description of the book are misleading.

Where do we start. What’s most glaring in the book is its hostility towards unbelievers. Book justifies not only spiritual and intellectual hostility but also social hostility towards them (for the remark about social hostility read book’s Conclusion chapter). This is a genuine quote from the book: „You non-Christians are stupid, sinful, hopeless, and worthless. You are unproductive, unprofitable, and ungrateful. You must repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and depend on him to save you. If you do not embrace the Christian faith, God will throw you into the fires of hell, where he will torture you with extreme and endless suffering.”

The other thing is the purpose of apologetics as presented in the book. According to Cheung purpose of apologetics is to humiliate other person rather than to persuade them and fight for the integrity of intellectual investigation. This ties up with author’s lowly view on unbelievers and his Calvinism.

Third, the tips are either terrible or too simple. For example author claims that rebuking and insulting audience in a public debate is to be recommended. One has to make clear to the opponent that they lost and that they are intellectually bankrupt (according to the author not me). Author also gives such basic tips as „understand your enemy” or „be defensive” - these terms could be expanded a little more and not be narrowed to such basic advices.

Probably the worst part of the book is its practical application, portrayed in the book itself. In Chapter 2 there’s a fictitious dialog between few characters and Vincent (author of the book who represents the ideas contained in it). Vincent applies book's attitude towards apologetics in a horrifying manner - he insults, calls the other side irrational, is uncharitable and dances around the point by avoiding to acknowledge common sense definitions.

But there’s some light in the tunnel. I took extensive notes and I can tell there are things that one can learn from this book. For example one can learn that: informal debates oftentimes can be more fruitful than formal ones, one has to present major elements of one’s and opponent’s worldview and to understand them, every worldview has foundational propositions that create a tree of subsidiary propositions, and many more things. This is good info and good tips for a debate.

Another interesting thing in author’s approach to apologetics is his philosophy „that the opponent has to make more mental efford than you” in a debate. Opponent has to be pressed on some issues and if opponent attacks you with arguments, he has to explain them thoroughly. Although this interesting and unique approach, it is defiled with calls against the unbelievers and the fact that author portays the mind of the unbeliever as an evil and irrational thing.

Overall, I give 2 out of 5. Sorry but this is mostly horrible advice and approach but there were some good tips in the book. I also took extensive notes, so it was fun analyzing this book’s contents.