Giving Reason For The Hope: The Possibility and Necessity of the Apologetic Task

as a Ministry Within The Church And Her Mission (1 Peter 3:15)

As a new believer during my teenage days, I discovered apologetics through a

booklet written by Josh McDowell. It came as a lifeline at a critical juncture in my

spiritual walk as I tried to make sense of the claims of Christ in relation to other faiths,

especially the Buddhist-Taoist tradition. To be frank, I did not come to faith after arriving

at satisfactory conclusions about the reliability of Scripture or thorough investigation on

the historical evidences of Jesus’ resurrection. The decision to trust in Him as Lord and

Savior followed the hearing of a simple gospel message, which convicted me of sins

against a holy God and the need for reconciliation with Him through the sacrifice of

Christ on the cross. However, coming from a plausibility structure that would not take

Christian claims at face value, my newfound faith launched an ongoing and often lonely

intellectual struggle to understand its justifications and implications. Echoing Anselm,

my pilgrimage would be more appropriately described as “faith seeking understanding”.

As time went by, I discovered other reflective people in and outside church who ask

fundamental questions in life like our origin, identity, purpose and destiny. The

dissatisfaction with simplistic albeit pious clichés for an answer is both our blessing and

our curse. I began to feel acutely the vacuum in the local church for suitably equipped

ministers who address such issues with sensitivity and knowledge. Again, I turned to the

wisdom of books by Augustine, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis and others. In this paper, I

seek to explore the role of apologetics in Scripture and church history in a missional

context before discussing how it may be done in the Malaysian context.

1
The Possibility And Necessity of Apologetics In Scripture

Derived from the Greek word apologia, which meant “defense”, the apologetic task

involved refuting objections leveled against the Christian faith (defensive apologetics)

and/or providing a positive case for its acceptance (offensive apologetics)1. As such, it

could play a potentially crucial role in both strengthening the faith of believers and

helping to remove obstacles that hinder a seeker from coming to faith in the task of

evangelism. Do we not find numerous biblical instances of reasoned arguments employed

in the ministry of Jesus Himself? In His didactic dialogues with Pharisees, Sadducees and

disciples, Jesus rationally answered objections, opened up hidden assumptions with well-

placed questions and appealed to miraculous signs as evidence for His claims2. During

Paul’s missionary journeys, we frequently find him in synagogues persuading and

debating Jewish religious leaders and pagan philosophers at Mars Hill on the validity of

the gospel (Acts 14:15-17, 17:2-4, 16-31, 18:4, 19:8-9)3. Since Luke took care to

explicitly record that some who heard his presentation indeed chose to believe (Acts

17:34), the narrative does not function as an illustration of the bankruptcy of persuasion

as taught by Watchman Nee. Even some of these converts’ names (Dionysius and

Damaris) were mentioned, indicating that these men from Athens eventually made an

impact on church life in later years.

1
Steven Cowan, general editor, Five Views On Apologetics, (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2000), page 8
2
Some examples of Jesus’ rabbinic use of logic and reason in disarming objections can be seen in passages
like Matthew 11:4-6 (appeal to evidences), 21:24-26 (questions that expose motives), 22:37 (tertium quid),
22:41 (reductio ad absurdum) and Luke 13:10-17 (a fortiori argument).
3
Scripture citations are taken from J.P. Moreland, Love God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason In
the Life of the Soul, (NavPress: Colorado Springs, 1997), page 131

2
Not only that, we also have clear biblical injunction in 1 Peter 3:15-16 for a persecuted

church to be prepared to give a credible answer (apologia) to everyone who asked for the

reason why they believed. It is not just a nice suggestion or a duty for an elite group of

intellectuals only. Biblical apologetics thrive or wither in the whole church as we carry

out the missionary task. Interestingly, the same passage also admonished us to be gentle

and respectful, keeping a clear conscience and displaying Christ-like behavior before

hostile critics. How we need to vigilantly shun the besetting sins of tactless method,

intellectual pride and lack of grace evident in many would-be apologists! In 2 Corinthians

10:4-6, the church is urged to take apart arguments that set itself up against the

knowledge of Christ, making every thought captive in obedience to Him. Spiritual

warfare is therefore not primarily about doing prayer walks around the neighborhood.

Especially in a pluralistic context like Malaysia, the church needs more informed,

winsome and courageous ambassadors who could engage contemporary challenges in a

biblically faithful and culturally relevant manner.

However, there are also some common objections which have been advanced against the

use of apologetics in favor of a simple proclamation of the gospel. For example, we are

reminded of Paul’s warning “that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive

philosophy” (Colossians 2:8) and “the gospel is the foolishness of God… I come not with

persuasive words of wisdom” (1 Corinthian 1-2). We would do well to remember that

ultimately the Holy Spirit is able and responsible to convict and renew a sinner’s heart to

repentance and trust in Christ, not the cogency of our arguments. However, a more

careful reading of the texts mentioned suggests that Paul was actually warning us against

3
false philosophy, not philosophy per se. In order to beware of false philosophy, we need

to be aware of them first!4

As we have seen earlier, Paul himself used reasoning in gospel proclamation and his

condemnation was directed against prideful intellectualism, not against reason itself (1

Corinthians 8:1). The crucifixion is offensive to human pride for the Jews sought

miraculous signs whereas the Greek sophists peddle ‘wisdom’ by improving their

speaking skills to persuade people with empty rhetoric, not substance.5 Simply put, the

antidote for arrogance is humility, not ignorance (1 Corinthians 14:20). When Jesus

commended the faith of a child (Matthew 18:2-4), He was referring to a child’s

dependent humility, not the mental ability of toddlers, as a condition to enter the

Kingdom. It is not uncommon to find proud ignoramus who are defensive and unwilling

to learn from others too. Therefore, intellectual witness should not be viewed as a

competitor or substitute of the Spirit’s work of illumination, but a means by which He

could open spiritual eyes to see the truth. Just as the ministry of transportation is to ferry

people to a physical place where they can listen to the gospel, the apologetic ministry

seeks to bring them to a “cultural and intellectual space” where the communication of the

gospel makes plausible sense in the worldview of the hearers.

While it is obvious that God does not need our defense, His sheep nonetheless needs

protection from adverse spiritual consequences of false teachings. C. S. Lewis correctly

reflects: “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies [of Christ]

4
Norman Geisler, Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars, (Christian Apologetics Journal,
Volume 2, No.1, Spring 1999), page 17 <www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Geisler.pdf> (20 February 2007)
5
J. P. Moreland, Love God With All Our Mind: The Role of Reason In the Life of the Soul, page 58 - 59

4
on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons and to betray our

uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual

attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad

philosophy needs to be answered."6 Therefore, Scripture seems to mandate a duty for the

church to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3). While faith is beyond reason, it also

does not require a fideistic, intellectual suicide. Biblically understood, faith involves the

entire person - knowledge, mental assent as well as a personal commitment.7

The Possibility And Necessity of Apologetics In Church History

Historically speaking, the apologetic task had an important pedigree and we could learn

from its ancient role in the church’s mission as the gospel spread to a predominantly

Gentile context. By the second century, educated converts like Justin Martyr, Theophilus

of Antioch, Athenagoras and Aristides of Athens wrote substantial apologetic literature in

the face of persecution and intellectual challenges from their Greco-Roman civilisation.

They do not just argue about religion but broader cultural issues like religious freedom,

the meaning of education and history of nations.8 Justin showed appreciation for Socrates

and Heraclitus as men who partook of a vague knowledge of the Logos, as honorary

Christians specifically in their rejection of pagan religious practices and subsequent

ostracization. While we do not know if they had much success with the pagan

intelligentsia or political rulers to whom the corpus was addressed, the Apologists

6
C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, (Macmillan Publishing: New York , 1965), page 28.
7
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 2001), page 951 - 954
8
Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, (SCM Press: London, 1988), page 11

5
nonetheless provided a theological foundation on which later Christian thinkers would

develop and finally replace the prevailing pagan philosophies of the day.9

Although the legacy of other apologists operating in the context of mission encounter

could be cited, their role has significantly diminished in the modern era.10 In order to

glean some lessons on how apologetics at its best has served the church, I would just

highlight two outstanding theologians even though their contribution was not entirely

without fault11. Burdened by many ecclesiastical and pastoral concerns, Augustine was a

North African bishop during the fifth century A.D. while Aquinas was a widely-travelled

Dominican monk in the medieval era. The former wrote his most significant treatise, The

City of God, in response to an “epochal shift” occassioned by the fall of Rome while the

latter was roused to encounter the rise of a sophisticated Islamic civilisation in Spain with

Summa Contra Gentiles.12

In a perceptive study by Curtis Chang, we could see that in their differing interaction with

neo-Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy respectively, both men employed a similar

rhetorical strategy to enter the challenger’s story, retell it and capture the retold story
9
Gerald Bray, ‘Explaining Christianity to Pagans: The Second-Century Apologists’ in The Trinity In a
Pluralistic Age: Theological essays on Culture and Religion, edited by Kevin Vanhoozer, (Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, 1997), page 9-10
10
See Harold Netland’s excellent discussion on how, with varying degrees of evangelistic success and
biblical fidelity, Christian apologists like Theodore Abu Qurrah and Zwemer (Islam), Matteo Ricci
(Confucianism), William of Rubruck (Buddhism) and many others have left a legacy on the mission field.
Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission,
(InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2001), page 252 - 256
11
All of us are influenced by our culture and historical condition. One may argue that there were occasions
when Augustine’s theology succumbed to Platonic dualism and Aquinas’ synthesis with Aristotelian logic
was frequently indicted as having put asunder the realm of nature and grace. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth:
Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity, (Crossway: Illinois, 2005), page 74 - 80
12
“While there is no precise criterion for what qualifies as an epochal challenge, Christians encountering
one feel that the ground they have taken for granted is shifting. The basic reference points that have guided
how they inhabit their epoch as Christians seem to be toppling.” Curtis Chang, Engaging Unbelief: A
Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas, (InterVarsity: Downers Grove, 2000), pages 13 – 19

6
within the gospel narrative. That is, both men immersed themselves within the paradigm,

authorities or story of the alternative worldview to find a shared space for dialogue, then

reinterpret it to reveal tragic incompleteness or dissonant tensions inherent in its plot and

finally capturing the rival stories by revealing how the ‘resolution’ is finally found in the

gospel.13 They were not trapped behind an airtight fortress that has no point of contact

with others. Neither did they lose the dramatic plot of an overarching Christian narrative.

As testament of their labor, Augustine defeated the pagans’ attempt to blame Christianity

for Rome’s decline, insisted that the city of God is never coterminous with any “Christian

nation” and made possible the preservation of learning in medieval churches. Without

Aquinas, the church may reject wholesale Aristotelian insights on sensory-based

experiment and empirical evidences, thereby crippling the emergence of modern science

in the West.14 Their legacy of cultural relevance and biblical faithfulness should spur

present day Christian thinkers to greater exploits.

Challenges For The Apologetic Task In Malaysia

13
Ibid, pages 26 - 27
14
Ibid., page 137 – 138

7
Although there has been laudable work done by organisations like Kairos Research

Center and NECF Research Commission, the Malaysian church remains generally

shrouded by an anti-intellectual mood that substantially hinder the development of a

robust inquiring spirit so crucial for the apologetic task. As many denominations were

established by British and American missionaries, the confluence of inherited

dispensational-fundamentalist theology, Holiness spirituality (“Let go, Let God!”) and

Pentecostal-experiential instincts coloured much of our spiritual ethos. As a result, there

is a common emphasis on “the dangers of the world, the comforts of the separated piety,

the centrality of evangelism, and an expectation of the End.”15 Other sociological

mitigating circumstances could be cited like pragmatic, populist and “immediate result”

activism so characteristic of the enterpreneurial Chinese immigrants’ mindset.

Unsurprisingly, Noll’s critique of the ‘scandal of the evangelical mind’ for an American

setting is largely relevant here as well, posing a formidable barrier against the

development of an intellectual witness and cultural mandate for many complex and

current religious and sociopolitical issues facing the Malaysian church.16

Also, in the minds of many Malay Muslims in Southeast Asia, there was no distinction

between the arrival of Christian missionaries and the European powers which waged war,

colonized their lands and controlled the regional spice trade. The Portugese, Spanish,

Dutch and English colonizers fought among themselves for the spoils and cruelly

15
Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, (InterVarsity: Leicester, 1994), page 109 – 145. For a
brief sociological and political dimension on the decline of the evangelical mind in America, see Nancy
Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity, (Crossway: Illinois, 2005), page
251 - 294
16
“When faced with a crisis situation, we evangelicals usually do one of two things. We either mount a
public crusade or we retreat into an inner pious sanctum”. Ibid, page 141.

8
exploited the local people so a deep sense of antipathy remained even today.17 Long after

gaining national independence, the political elite in Indonesia and Malaysia considered

Islam as closely linked to nationalism and regarded Christian mission as a social threat.

Given such a sensitive post-colonial scenario, some Christians prefer to steer away from a

robust apologetics because stressing propositional truth claims seem like a mask for

Foucaultian power play and oppression of indigenous cultures.

Another significant challenge comes from a pluralistic mindset, common in Asian

societies, which looked with disapproving suspicion, if not open hostility, at any religious

faith that claims to be the exclusive truth. While we are obviously living in a society with

diverse religious perspectives, religious pluralism is a particular perspective that these

religions are equally valid in terms of access to truth and effectiveness in salvation. This

view is illustrated beautifully by the ancient story of ten blind men trying to describe an

elephant after touching different parts of its body for the first time18. As they announced

their conflicting discoveries, a heated argument ensued. Awakened by the quarrel, the

Rajah corrected all of them by saying, “The elephant is a huge animal and each of you

touched a part. In order to know the whole truth about what the elephant looks like, you

must put together all the parts!” The moral of the story is that no religion has privileged

access to the whole truth. Each religious view is a partial experience of the same Reality

from its own culturally conditioned perspective. Given such a cultural milieu, it seems

politically incorrect to claim superiority for any particular religion.

17
Robert D. McAmis, Malay Muslims: The History And Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia,
(Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002), pages 27 – 39
18
Lillian Quigley, The Blind Men and the Elephant, (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1959). It is crucial to
note that the story assumes an all-seeing Rajah who has “God’s eye view” of reality. The pluralist makes an
implicit but absolute claim to possess that privileged access even as he denies it for everyone else.

9
Doing Apologetics In The Malaysian Context

Offering diagnosis without prescription makes for light work so let us explore some

proposals on how the apologetic task may be carried out in the Malaysian context. In

view of many contemporary challenges, Dr Ng Kam Weng urged the Malaysian church

to take proactive steps to enhance resources and nurture promising young leaders while

they are still in colleges. I heartily concur with his proposal for long-term and intentional

programs to equip them with necessary tools to interact with Asian philosophies and

religions in an engaging method and accessible language.19 While there has been a

resurgence of apologetic works in the American context, most of the materials were

produced in response to atheistic secularism and naturalism. A typical strategy by

classical apologists like William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and J. P. Moreland would

proceed from a defence for the existence of God through various theistic arguments, the

possibility of miracles and historical reliability of Scriptures. The goal is to lay a realist,

historical foundation for accepting the resurrection of Christ, a crucial ‘clincher’ for the

vindication of Christ’s unique claim to Deity.20 The Malaysian church has definitely

benefited from growing evangelical scholarship in defence of the historicity of the

Gospels since Muslim apologists like Ahmad Deedat borrowed the tools of liberal

biblical criticism in their attempt to show that the Gospels are internally inconsistent or

19
Ng Kam Weng, Current Concerns For Christian Intellectual Witness, (NECF Malaysia Cross-Currents
Consultations), <http://necf.org.my/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=12&action=view&retrieveid=25 > (20
February 2007)
20
For example, see Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers
Explain Why They Believe, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001)

10
textually corrupt. Such apologetics will continue as long as sensational challenges from

The Da Vinci Code, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” documentary and others flood the media.

However, more often than not, we encounter alternative religious systems which already

took the existence of the supernatural or spiritual world for granted. In contrast, many

Western Christians too quickly dismissed such worldviews as mere superstitions or

demonic, neglecting their positive cultural elements and revealing their own captivity to

Enlightenment assumptions.21 Though commonly used in Malaysia, classical apologetics

could be unwieldy insofar as it requires extensive memory and grasp of historical or

scientific data. Perhaps, the effectiveness of theistic arguments from design, morality,

causality and others may be applicable for agnostics or atheists who have developed a

synthesis with Buddhism.22 But what may work for a secular atheist may not work for a

theistic Muslim or pantheistic Hindu. Asian Christians need to rethink our rhetorical

approach as a series of three-step, logical arguments in favor of a more dialogical

engagement, meal hospitality, posing questions that invite participation or self-discovery,

story-telling that involves the imagination and listening with empathy.23 Many people,

inundated by totalizing claims of rationality, increasingly yearn for spirituality in the

context of authentic community. They also want to see the fruits of our belief in
21
On the difficulty for the two-tiered Western mind to understand and address issues on astrology and spirit
world, see Paul Hiebert, ‘The Law of The Excluded Middle’, (Missiology 10:1, 1982), pages 35 - 47
22
In my personal experience, many reflective Buddhists have integrated an atheistic, naturalistic worldview
with Buddhist spirituality, which is not built on the existence of any deity. While some atheists in the West
may be critiqued for an arid and reductionist view of man, their Asian counterparts have found nourishment
in a non-theistic religion.
23
Randy Newman, Rabbinic Questioning – A Better Way To Evangelize, (Christianity Today, Faith in the
Marketplace, 18 Dec 2004), <www.christianitytoday.com/workplace/articles/rabbinicquestioning.html>,
(20 February 2007)
According to Huntington’s provocative and frightening analysis, “the central and most dangerous
dimension of the emerging global politics would be conflict between groups from differing civilizations”.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash Of Civilizations And the Remaking of World Order, (Simon & Schuster:
London, 1996), page 13

11
embodied living and compassion for the needy before examining their validity. Having

been a layperson-practitioner in various settings, I am convinced that apologetic should

be lived out artfully as much as it is argued rationally, in a trust-building faith community

where Kingdom perspectives are demonstrated.24 We should avoid a false dichotomy

between truth and grace by following Jesus Christ who personified both (John 1:17).

Now, let us evaluate another influential apologetic method called Reformed

epistemology. Defended by philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Wolterstorff and others, it

challenged the Enlightenment demand that everything we believe in must be supported

by sufficient evidence. While some beliefs do require evidence, we cannot go on an

infinite regress of proofs for every belief. Somewhere along the line, the buck stops at

some properly basic beliefs which we intuitively know without inference from other

beliefs.25 It is argued that evidences for God’s existence are not necessary for a rational

faith even though such evidences may indeed exist. Echoing Calvin, belief in God

emerges from an innate ‘sense of the divine’. Christians have epistemic permission to

believe in God since such basic beliefs are the results of our cognitive faculties

functioning successfully according to their design of producing true beliefs.26

24
The weakness in the Alpha course model is the difficulty to get busy seekers to commit to extended
weekly meetings but the relational, conversational and group hospitality around a meal approach is a right
direction for food-loving Malaysians. Lausanne Committee For World Evangelization, The Uniqueness of
Christ In a Postmodern World and The Challenge of World Religions, (Lausanne Occasional Paper 31,
2004), <http://community.gospelcom.net/lcwe/assets/LOP31_IG2.pdf > (20 February 2007)
25
For some examples, basic beliefs are our belief in the existence of other minds, the past, moral intuition
like torturing babies is wrong, 2+2=4 and the existence of an enduring self.
26
See the section on reformed epistemology by Kelly James Clark in Steven Cowan, editor, Five Views On
Apologetics, page 266 – 273.

12
By probing hidden presuppositions behind the demand for evidences, I find Reformed

epistemology helpful to deflect the burden of proof from resting solely on the believer’s

shoulders. After all, how many church members in our midst could grasp such subtle

philosophical nuances as found in the ontological argument? By rightly rejecting a self-

defeating criteria for knowledge demanded by Cartesian foundationalism, a believer is

not obligated to be a temporary agnostic or give up the faith at the pain of irrationality

even if he has no access to any theistic proofs.27 It seems to be a workable strategy

against the dominant naturalistic accounts of epistemology that Plantinga had to wrestle

with.28 However, in a pluralistic context, it seems to open wide the door for Buddhists,

Hindus and Muslims to claim ‘epistemic rights’ to their fundamental beliefs as properly

basic as well.

While committed to the necessity of Holy Spirit’s inner witness to convict us of the truth,

Harold Netland pointed out that various self-authenticating experiences that overcome

any amount of contrary evidences could also be found in other religions. Our notions of

what constitutes basic beliefs depend heavily on prior ontological and theological

understanding of the nature of human beings.29 We cannot take these assumptions for

granted especially if others do not share them. But if there is no neutral, universally

rational foundation by which we could evaluate conflicting truth claims, on what basis do

we privilege the Christian gospel? Is it merely one among the many we choose from due

27
While not every individual needs to be able to handle such objections, challenges nonetheless needs to be
met as a community project. We cannot interpret the world intra-textually without findings from the world
from speaking to our Christian worldview as well.
28
If our brains evolved to produce consciousness for the sole purpose of survival, there is no reason to
suppose why our cognitive faculties should produce true beliefs. Even false beliefs could aid survival if
such false beliefs prompt us to run away from predators.
29
Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, pages
260 – 264

13
to the whims of history or culture? While postmodernism or pluralism may arguably

provide a level playing field for all kinds of stories, a religious claim that has no referent

beyond their respective ‘language games’ become trivial or subverted.

Influenced by Reformed epistemology, Stanley Grenz tried to answer this burning

question by focusing on an ‘incarnational’ apologetics, which has impressed many

emerging leaders today.30 He observed that the goal of all social traditions is to construct

a well-ordered society.31 Instead of asking, “Which religion alone is true?” the question

should be reformulated as, “Which religious vision provides the basis for community in

the truest sense?” Although all religious traditions may contribute to societal cohesion,

Grenz’s contention is that the gospel alone provides a more complete vision of the nature

of community that all human religious traditions aspire to achieve since it embodies the

highest understanding of who God actually is.32 The human search for communal

relationship actually mirrors the Triune nature of the eternal God Himself as “plurality-

in-unity”. The church is the visible embodiment of God’s universal purpose in the gospel

to reconcile a diverse people and renew them in a gathered community as a sign of the

age to come.

In the Asian context, where collective identity and relationship are stressed despite rapid

erosion by modernistic individualism, I appreciate Grenz’s insights for an apologetic

strategy integrally modeled in the church. However, as he himself has noted, various

30
See the chapter on Apologetics: From Rationalism To Embodiment in Robert Webber, The Younger
Evangelicals, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2002), pages 94 - 106
31
Stanley Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology In A Post-Theological Era, (Baker: Grand
Rapids, 2000), page 281
32
Ibid., pages 284 – 286

14
communities espouse different understandings of what constitutes true community.33

Without some common ground in our understanding of what “community” means, how

could we then claim that the Christian story fulfills what they are actually seeking? And

if such radically differing visions are ultimately incommensurable, it seems to undercut

the claim that the gospel provides a “more” complete basis for community life in

comparison. Ironically, Grenz’s proposals seem to make sense only if we do not overstate

the divergence in our foundations of rationality, morality and community. This should not

be surprising since different human cultures and languages do share a common humanity.

Without going back to Cartesian foundationalism, I find the structure of “incarnational”

apologetics work best within a critical realist or chastened, modest, Reidian

foundationalism. Again, Harold Netland is perceptive to point out that current discontent

with positive apologetics owes more to the manner in which it is sometimes done and

unrealistic expectations set by proponents.34 Could a humble and realistic approach to

positive apologetics be sustained? In my humble opinion, there is enough room in the

apologetic task to draw on the strengths from different methodologies to construct a

positive, cumulative case for Christian theism. Since the gospel provides the most

comprehensively plausible, logically coherent and existentially satisfying explanation of

the universe and our human experience, we could rejoice in the convergence of many

apologetic streams. From the classical apologists, we drink in empirical evidences that

demand a verdict. From the Reformed epistemologists, we learn to trust in the Spirit’s

ability to produce genuine faith apart from arguments. From the presuppositionalists, we

33
Ibid., page 280
34
Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, page 278

15
discover that unique features of human life make sense only when interpreted through a

biblical outlook. With the incarnational apologists, we live out the practical

demonstration of the faith in a living, ecclesical community.

No matter how we conceptualize it, the ethical criterion of truth remains a crucial

challenge for the faith community. As a minority, we are called to demonstrate how a

Trinitarian approach for community formation nurtures ‘unity-in-diversity’ in

contradistinction from a potentially pluralistic but violent clash of civilizations or a docile

state of monistic ‘dhimmitude’.35 If the ultimate apologetic is found in Jesus’ prayer that

His believers may be one as a reflection of Trinitarian love (John 17:21-22), our

challenge today may sound like this: “How would the koinonia as an inclusive,

sanctified, racially and socially diverse community of faith be any different from a

monolithic ummah or a secular, fragmented individualism?”36 Would the church translate

theology into socio-political practices that would answer our community’s yearning for

racial reconciliation, public governance with integrity, peacemaking and liberation from

oppression and poverty? The late Lesslie Newbigin wrote that it is precisely because we

want unity that we seek the truth by which alone humankind can become one: “That truth

is not a doctrine or a worldview or even a religious experience; it is certainly not to be

35
According to Huntington’s provocative and frightening analysis, “the central and most dangerous
dimension of the emerging global politics would be conflict between groups from different civilizations”,
rather than ideological or economic boundaries. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and The
Remaking of World Order, (The Free Press: Kingsway, 2002)
36
Quoting John Zizoulas, we could also say, “In God the particular is ontologically ultimate because
relationship is permanent and unbreakable. Because the Father, the Son and the Spirit are always together,
the particular beings are the bearers of the totality of nature and thus no contradiction between ‘one’ and
‘many’ can arise.” Quotation found in Colin Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, (T & T Clark:
Edinburgh, 1991), page 97

16
found by repeating abstract nouns like justice and love; it is the man Jesus Christ in

whom God was reconciling the world. The Truth is personal, concrete, historical.”37

If the Malaysian church could thus demonstrate an alternative society that transcends

ethnic, cultural, economic class and political barriers, the perception of Christianity as a

Western colonial reality will be more effectively exorcised. Our apologetic should also

take on board a faithful portrayal of Christ, as the Suffering Servant-King who laid aside

His majesty and emptied Himself in humility to rescue and serve humanity (Matthew

10:28, Luke 22:27). The cross subverts every pretension to power by violence and de-

legitimates manipulation and oppression. Although it does not guarantee innocence in its

adherents, we find within the biblical meta-narrative is two inherent anti-totalizing

inclinations - a radical sensitivity to suffering and God’s overarching creational intent

over all, thus preventing a partisan abuse.38 Through the atonement of Christ, the way for

reconciliation and forgiveness is made possible even for the oppressors.

In a stirring call, Engel and Dryness argued that the New Testament church made a

parody of the ‘center-periphery’ mission model, which has as its starting point centers of

power and wealth before moving to the periphery of those who were impoverished

spiritually and physically. The book of Acts recorded how the gospel made its way from

Jerusalem, an insignificant backwater of the Roman Empire to the very household of

Caesar.39 Today, churches in the so-called Two-Thirds World need to embody the self-
37
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1989), page 170
38
J. R. Middleton and B. J. Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, (InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove, Illinois:), page 87
39
J.F. Engel and W.A. Dyrness, Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong?
(InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois), page 40 – 43

17
emptying and suffering Christ, not the imperialist Caesar. As servant-leaders, we need to

engage contemporary issues in our proclamation and service for the sake of the world as

significant missionary-sending contributors. In word and deed, we sensitively recognize

the diversity and integrity of different cultures and ‘language games’, while holding to

the significant possibility for meaningful communication as we also share a basic

humanity in God’s image and live together in the same created world.

Concluding Remarks

While there is certainly indispensable necessity for worldview encounter and

legitimate art of persuasion, we need to get beyond a confrontational mode of interfaith

dialogue. There are also other themes which deserve our attention like interfaith

dialogues in promoting common social harmony, joint action in overcoming racism,

AIDS and poverty. Although the process of Islamization is a growing concern, which

calls for courageous countercultural witness, the church also needs to draw from the rich

resources for social programs that spring from a common theistic outlook with Islam, the

national religion, as opposed to naturalistic secularism. At the same time, dialogue-in-life

should permeate the rank and file in the office, classroom, factory and ‘rumah terbuka’

during festivities. That is, Christians should abandon a ‘ghetto’ mentality and actively

pursue to be with the other, collaborate with them in action and discourse to understand

and be understood. To be effective, the laity must be equipped to do conversational

evangelism.40

40
Ravi Zacharias International Ministry, Meekness and Truth Ministry and the Agora ministry among
others are currently providing such equipping resources in conversational apologetics for the laity.

18
In conclusion, let us heed the rousing call for the apologetic task by J. G. Machen when

he said, “It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can

overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation

useless. But as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain

prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with

the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are

the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of

a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the

while collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by

the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more

than a harmless delusion.”41

Bibliography

41
J. Gresham Machen, What Is Christianity?, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1951), page 162.

19
1. 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, Stanley Grenz & Roger

Olson, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1992

2. Apologetics To the Glory of God: An Introduction, John Frame, P & R Publishing: New

Jersey, 1994

3. Christian Theology, Millard Erickson, Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 2001

4. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission,

Harold Netland, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2001

5. Engaging Unbelief: A Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas, Curtis

Chang, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2000

6. Five Views On Apologetics, Steven Cowan, Zondervan: Downers Grove, 2000

7. Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert Grant, SCM Press: London, 1988

8. Love God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason In the Life of the Soul, J. P. Moreland,

NavPress: Colorado Springs, 1997

9. Malay Muslims: The History And Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia,

Robert D. McAmis, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002

10. Reclaiming The Center: Confronting Accommodation In Postmodern Times, edited by

Millard Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth and Justin Taylor, Crossway: Illinois, 2004

11. Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology In A Post-Theological Era, Stanley

Grenz, Baker: Grand Rapids, 2000

12. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, Lesslie Newbigin, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,

1989

13. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll, InterVarsity Press: Leicester,

1994

20
14. The Trinity In a Pluralistic Age: Theological essays on Culture and Religion,

edited by Kevin Vanhoozer, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1997

15. The Uniqueness of Christ In a Postmodern World and The Challenge of World

Religions, Lausanne Committee For World Evangelization, Lausanne Occasional

Paper 31, 2004

16. The Younger Evangelicals, Robert Webber, Baker: Grand Rapids, 2002

17. Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, J. R. Middleton and B. J. Walsh,

InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois

18. Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, edited by

Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001

21