A Defense of Amateur Apologetics a la C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton

I was on a discussion board where a person asked whether I had a degree in biblical studies (I do not) and one particular book on exegesis (which in fact I did have). The implication (in context) was clearly that I was incompetent in what I do because of the lack of such a degree or that I was making myself out to be something I am not.

Furthermore, in the past, one nemesis of mine has made the argument that people ought to know Greek in order to correctly understand the New Testament. Without that knowledge, they would operate under a severe handicap and perhaps shouldn't even attempt to do exegesis at all. But he even went further than that. He argued that it was improper even to use works such as Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament in order to learn about the original Greek, as applied to a particular passage. This is, of course, an outrageous elitism, and contrary to the spirit of the very "Reformation" that this person wishes to uphold. He wrote on a public board on 21 January 2002):

Doesn't anyone wonder how a person (Dave) who admits he has no Greek training can talk confidently about doing "proper exegesis"? A Greek scholar I'm not either, but surely there's much more to exegesis than quoting lexicons and grammar aids. Especially when one doesn't even know the language itself! I have 16 weeks of first year Greek under my belt at this time, and I assure you this from seeing what I have seen about how nuanced and rich the language is: no matter what the needs of my apologetics, I would not even begin to attempt to make arguments from the Greek text of Scripture, much less quote a few resources . . .

I replied:

Okay, let me get this straight: Laymen such as myself are not entitled to use lexical, linguistic biblical reference works such as Kittel, Vine, Vincent, Robertson, Thayer, Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance, Strong's Concordance, etc. because we don't know Greek ourselves? Such a practice is insufferably arrogant and intolerable? One has to first know Greek to even quote such works, lest no one on a "scholarly" board like this will "listen to them"?

This is a very curious, profoundly silly, ludicrous concept indeed, especially coming from a Protestant who strongly accepts and defends sola Scriptura and the perspicuity (clearness; plainness) of Scripture (as these are all Protestant works).

. . . according to you, I can't cite this work or related ones, or argue on that basis against another similar work, or some other commentator's contentions, because I don't know Greek myself.

I then cited the explanations of the authors of such linguistic aids (their own opinion as to the purpose and correct use of them). I cited F.F. Bruce writing about Vine, Geoffrey Bromiley introducing Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and A.T. Robertson and Marvin Vincent commenting on their well-known multi-volume works (see: The Layman's Use of Greek Bible Reference Books), and summed up:

I will accept the word of these scholars, not yours and that of other of my critics, who wish to imply that I am "way over my head" in simply utilizing reference works which were designed precisely and specifically to be of such service to non-scholars and lovers of the Bible such as myself. There is nothing whatsoever improper or "arrogant" or "pretentious" in that.

I close with words from the Introduction to my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

The widespread existence of evangelical Protestant Commentaries and various Lexicons, Bible Dictionaries, Concordances and so forth, for the use of laypeople, is based on a presupposition that individuals without formal theological education can arrive at conclusions on their own. This is largely what I am attempting presently. The only difference is that I am willing to modify or relinquish any conclusions of mine which turn out to be contrary to the clear teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church, whereas the quintessential Protestant ultimately can stand on his own (like Luther), "on the Bible," against, if need be, the whole Tradition of the Christian Church.

My own training, appropriate for a professional apologist (apart from my credentials) are the following: I have a BA degree in sociology with a minor in psychology (and lots of history and philosophy) (3.47 GPA) from Wayne State University in Detroit. I have 23 years of experience in apologetics and writing (including over four years as an evangelical Protestant campus missionary in the late 80s). I've studied the cults since the early 80s (I did intensive research on Jehovah's Witnesses in particular) and have witnessed in the streets and in many different places to thousands of people.

I was a pro-life activist involved in Operation Rescue from '88-'90 with five arrests and participation in about 25 separate rescues. That's part of my work as well: pro-life and traditional family values. I've read many hundreds of books and learned tons of things on my own. My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was heartily recommended by the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (he wrote the Foreword), one of the most respected catechists in the country, and advisor to both Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa. It was published by Sophia Institute Press, which specializes primarily in classic Catholic writings.

I studied with Fr. Hardon for a few years in his "Ignatian Catechist" training classes, but that was an informal, not formal course. All the most well-known Catholic apologists (many themselves with doctorates in theology, such as Scott Hahn, who wrote the Foreword to my second book) recommend my work. I've never been censured or rebuked by any bishop (or even a priest) for any theological error in ten years of being a published apologist. I have some 2200 books in my own library. I love Socratic dialogue and intense biblical and historical discussion.

This fully qualifies me to do what I do: popular and lay-level Catholic and general Christian apologetics, in order to bolster people's faith and get them to think about Christianity rationally and coherently and to be confident in what they believe, so that they can be the salt of the earth and more effectively share their faith with others.

I always point out that the greatest and most influential Christian apologists of the 20th century were not theologically-trained. C.S. Lewis (arguably the greatest) was an English professor. G.K. Chesterton was primarily a journalist, as was Malcolm Muggeridge. None of them were trained in theology, as far as I know. Thomas Howard (a prominent Catholic apologist of sorts today and a superb writer) is also an English professor. Peter Kreeft (perhaps the best Catholic apologist in many respects today, and very popular, even in Protestant circles) is a philosophy professor. He may have had some theology courses too (I don't know), but philosophy is his field.

One persistent critic wrote that "we should be careful when comparing ourselves to luminaries who have established reputations for themselves as Renaissance Men." But of course, I did no such thing. It's elementary logic:

1. A charge is made that one must have certain academic "credentials" in order to do apologetics and exegesis.

2. I point out that many of the leading and well-known and (most importantly) influential apologists were not trained in theology at all (or that their specialties are in different fields).

3. Ergo, if such well-known "luminaries" did not have to have a theology degree, and are highly-esteemed as apologists, and affected more lives than any other apologists, why would such credentials be required of a strictly minor, lay figure in strictly popular apologetics like myself?

At no point does this logic require "comparing ourselves" to the great apologists, because the point is that their very examples defeat the original criticism before it ever gets to me. But the charge sounds good. Critics like this one simply assume someone has attitudes that they don't necessarily have at all, and engages in shoddy logic, flowing from bias and question-begging. But this person would not let up:

Even Renaissance Men are still generalists and not specialists. There's a well-known story about how even the great Clive Staples Lewis got his head handed to him by a philosopher in a debate about Christianity. It is said that after this debate Lewis curtailed his "apologetics" writings sharply. Moral of the story: apologists, even famous ones, often find themselves out of their depth.

There are a number of overly-confident assertions here, and when all the facts are in, this incident should not be described as above, nor is its so-called "moral" for myself and apologists in general a valid one:

1. The debate was not about "Christianity" but rather, about the truthfulness of Lewis' argument that naturalism was self-refuting. His opponent was philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, and the encounter took place on 2 February 1948 in the Oxford Socratic Club. This was no "agnostic professional philosopher vs. amateur Christian apologist" scenario, since Anscombe was a Catholic.

2. Biographer George Sayer (Jack: C.S. Lewis and His Times, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988, 186-187), takes this general opinion, saying that Lewis told him "he had been proved wrong" and that "Jack thought he had been defeated." But he also states that the "audience disagreed about who had won the debate." Nor do all of Lewis' biographers agree with Sayer's assessment. Walter Hooper wrote:

I don't think Lewis was "defeated". . . I think it may have been Miss Anscombe's rather bullying quality that left Lewis low and dispirited afterward . . . Some who were at the meeting contend that Lewis lost to Miss Anscombe; others that the lady came out second best . . . Lewis told me he did not lose the argument.

(From C.S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table, edited by James T. Como, New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1979, in Hooper's chapter "Oxford's Bonny Fighter," 137-185, pp. 161, 163)

Biographer William Griffin reported that:

Some at the Socratic rose to his defense; others rallied around her. He didn't think he had lost.

(Clive Staples Lewis: A Dramatic Life, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986, 280)

3. Opinions as to what happened, then, were mixed. In any event, this didn't stop Lewis from writing about theology or doing apologetics. It was a technical debate, hinging on the meanings of words, typical of the analytic philosophy then in vogue. Lewis thought more about the critique Anscombe had made on his book, Miracles, and in a later edition, enlarged its chapter five: "A Further Difficulty in Naturalism," by three times, incorporating some different terminology to make his argument more clear. He didn't concede the argument (or else he would have ditched the chapter in the later edition).

Thus, this supposedly devastating experience at the hands of a philosopher didn't make Lewis "give up"; it merely challenged him to refine his terms and re-work his argument a bit. He was not "out of his depth." Lewis, as a thinker and seeker of truth, was, I'm sure, glad to have been challenged. Every thinker loves that. He met a worthy opponent that night. The critic above's interpretive slant on what happened and its aftermath is not by any means the only one.

4. As for Lewis being strictly a "generalist," this is also untrue. He dealt with specific topics of interest to Christian apologetics, whether he was a specialist in them or not, and he did this as a strict amateur, and never claimed otherwise. He wrote about issues of theology, though he was not a theologian; he dealt with issues of philosophy and history, though he was not a philosopher or historian. He wrote about ethics, and did biblical commentary. This is what apologists do, after all!

Yet his Miracles is considered one of the standard works on that subject (and as such, is recommended by many philosophers of religion); his book The Problem of Pain is a classic on the subject of the problem of evil. The Abolition of Man is widely-touted as a masterpiece concerning education and natural law. No one cares today whether Lewis was a professional or "expert" on those topics. The point is the arguments he gave, not his credentials.

5. Lewis repeatedly emphasizes his mere amateur, lay, non-expert status in his books. This was my point above: like many other of the greatest apologists: he was not a scholar in the field one would most expect of a Christian apologist: theology or biblical studies. But who cares? My own self-descriptions, then, in (particularly) the introduction to my first book (see below), are perfectly consistent in nature with Lewis's.

This doesn't mean that I compare myself in any way, shape, or form to Lewis, of course, but it does mean that if he has achieved the stature he has as an "amateur apologist," then there can be no a priori objection to my own work as an amateur apologist (since I am not claiming any false credentials for myself). In other words, such charges against me or any other lay apologist would also apply to C.S. Lewis and many other notable apologists. If one is reluctant to make that application, then they ought to cease making the bogus charges against other exceedingly minor apologists such as myself. That is the logic of my analogy. Here are some things that Lewis wrote, along these lines:

This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so.

(Miracles, New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1947, revised 1960, "The Scope of This Book," 4)

If any real theologian reads these pages he will very easily see that they are the work of a layman and an amateur.

(The Problem of Pain, New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1940, Preface, 10)

This is not a work of scholarship. I am no Hebraist, no higher critic, no ancient historian, no archaeologist. I write for the unlearned about things in which I am unlearned myself. If an excuse is needed (and perhaps it is) for writing such a book, my excuse would be something like this. It often happens that two schoolboys can solve difficulties in their work for one another better than the master can . . . The fellow-pupil can help more than the master because he knows less. The difficulty we want him to explain is one he has recently met. The expert met it so long ago that he has forgotten . . .

In this book, then, I write as one amateur to another, talking about difficulties I have met, or lights I have gained, when reading the Psalms, with the hope that this might at any rate interest, and sometimes even help, other inexpert readers. I am "comparing notes", not presuming to instruct.

(Reflections on the Psalms, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958, Introductory, 1-2)

I do this as well, on the same basis: as a lay apologist, neither claiming to be an expert on any given topic, nor (of course) pretending to be a scholar. As long as one makes this clear, there is nothing wrong with it. So my critic's intended "disanalogy" from Lewis fails. If he was not being presumptuous, writing as an amateur and layperson, then neither is any Christian apologist who does so. As for my "authority," I never claim more than I have. I am simply a lay apologist. I take pains to point this out often. If someone misses it, it's not my fault. I have never stated otherwise.
I especially took great pains to do this in the Introduction of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. It reads in part:

I have no formal theological training (although I have done a great deal
of independent study over the last twenty years). This work is intended
primarily as a layman's observations for other laymen, without
pretending to be anything beyond that.

. . . Furthermore, my relative lack of credentials might actually be
somewhat of an advantage on my part, from the vantage point of
Protestant assumptions about the perspicuity, or "clearness" of the
Bible (in terms of its outlines of the means whereby a man can be
saved). Martin Luther made a famous remark to the effect that even a
"plowboy" could interpret Scripture in the main without the necessary
help of the Church. This is, then, largely, a Catholic "plowboy's"
attempt to learn and to share from Scripture itself (although without in
the least denying the authoritativeness of the Church and Tradition).

. . . I am always wholeheartedly willing to interact with scholars and
reflective and thoughtful non-scholars who hold opposing viewpoints.
If, however, even superior theological education cannot suffice for an
adequate, reasonable alternate explanation over against the Catholic
interpretations of various portions of Scripture presented herein, then
it seems to me that this would serve only to strengthen the case I have
made as an ordinary layman.

There is nothing improper, unethical, deceitful, pretentious, intellectually-presumptuous, or objectionable in such a perspective whatsoever. My website and my books and articles have positively affected thousands of people (many of them practical atheists or agnostics before catching fire by means of apologetics and becoming active Christians again). Much on my website would be totally agreeable to the two critics mentioned above, and even to the most rabid anti-Catholic Protestant.

But that is of no concern to either of them (by appearances, anyway). They don't rejoice that Christian truth is being communicated to many thousands of people in such a way. Instead they want to pick a bone with me that I am not sufficiently-educated to do what I do. I say that is sheer nonsense. God is my judge. I've done nothing wrong, and I have been completely straightforward about both my "credentials" and exactly what I was attempting to do, and why.

I've dialogued and debated many people who DO have these advanced theological degrees, and if they are trying to defend something which cannot be sustained from the Bible or history, it doesn't matter a hill of beans how educated they are. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The same applies to scientists with regard to trying to prove materialism and naturalism or philosophers trying to prove that God doesn't exist (I have debated both).

So (like Socrates) I am not impressed simply by someone being more educated than I am. I'm much more interested in their premises and arguments for THIS topic that I am presently pursuing with them. The more educated they are, the better. I'm delighted. I think education is wonderful. I'm pretty much a teacher myself now, in my work. Hopefully the more educated person will be more logical and factually-informed. But this doesn't turn a false premise into a true one. I've always opposed elitism and intellectual snobbery, and there is plenty of that in academia. These are simply making general observations about having theological degrees and not having them, and how I view these things.

If an apologist needs "credentials" as an absolute requirement the way a college professor or physician or physicist or first violinist in a symphony orchestra does, then C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Thomas Howard are (or were) not Christian apologists (since they were not trained in theology). A lay apologist is a different thing than a scholar or academic.

Nor is it clear to me that if someone spends many years discussing and learning about theology (apart from a university setting; primarily from books) and even writes books about it (as I have done), that this has no relationship whatsoever to their qualifications as an apologist. For this was true of Lewis and the others above who were strictly "amateurs," theology-wise. Lewis wrote many highly influential books on apologetics, and even on philosophical and historical questions, without the requisite "credentials." They are cited by academics as masterpieces in their field. An apologist is simply one who defends the Christian faith. Every Christian is supposed to be an apologist to some extent (1 Peter 3:15-16, Jude 3). Some people (like myself) specialize in it and do it full-time.

The above men are some of the most influential apologists in the last 100 years (especially Lewis and Chesterton). If they are not "credentialed," more power to them (this makes their accomplishments all the more remarkable). They are certainly apologists. And since that is how I have always described myself -- not as a scholar or expert or authority -- , I have claimed nothing more than what Lewis claimed:

This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian . . .

(Beginning of Miracles)

If any real theologian reads these pages he will very easily see that they are the work of a layman and an amateur.

(The Problem of Pain, Preface)

This is not a work of scholarship . . . I write for the unlearned about things in whch I am unlearned myself . . . The fellow-pupil can help more than the master because he knows less . . . I write as one amateur to another . . . I am "comparing notes", not presuming to instruct.

(Reflections on the Psalms, Introductory)

I state the same kind of thing frequently:

I have no formal theological training . . . This work is intended primarily as a layman's
observations for other laymen, without pretending to be anything beyond that.

. . . This is, then, largely, a Catholic "plowboy's" attempt to learn and to share from
Scripture itself.

(Introduction to A Biblical Defense of Catholicism)

I reiterated my lay, non-academic status in the Introduction to my second book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, also (strange if I am trying to pretend to be what I am not; why keep blowing the big "secret"?):

I am not a theologian, and have no formal theological training . . . But perhaps that is preferable for my purposes, since (hopefully) I can express these points on a more popular level . . . as opposed to a strictly academic, scholarly level.

I have never claimed to be a scholar, because I am not, and I reiterate that again here, lest anyone misunderstand the level of ambition for what I am presently attempting to do . . . readers looking for the “latest research” or absolute rigor and documentation of every claim made will not find it here. Plenty of books can offer that (such as those by Dr. Scott Hahn), and I heartily recommend them, and use them myself, all the time. But I am trying to do something a little different.

And again in my fifth book, Catholic Theology of the Family, I wrote in the Introduction:

My goal is simple: to present a summary of Catholic teaching on the family and sexuality, from a “lay apologetics” standpoint; and to attempt to show why Catholics believe as they do in these areas.

Finally, in my online paper, Catholic Apologetic Method, Epistemology, and Open-Mindedness:

I have no formal theological training, and hence am not a theologian in the professional sense. I've never claimed to be any more than just a "popular apologist," a layman writing to laymen . . . Nor do I claim to be a scholar, which would be equally
foolish and dishonest on my part. On the other hand, I try to maintain scholarly standards, tone, and objectivity, to the extent that a non-scholar is able to do so successfully.

If I'm trying to fool people into thinking that I am a scholar or an academic, when I am not, this is sure an odd, counter-productive way to go about it: by stating otherwise in prominent, introductory places in my books and papers.

The point I'm trying to make about "amateur apologists / historians / philosophers" is seen even more clearly in the case of G.K. Chesterton (no more trained theologically than Lewis was). In his Introduction to his classic work, Orthodoxy, he wrote:

The only possible excuse for this book is that it is an answer to a challenge. Even a bad shot is dignified when he accepts a duel . . .

This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slovenly autobiography.

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1959 -- originally 1908 -- 9,13)

At the beginning of his equally classic book, The Everlasting Man, (which, incidentally, was the book that C.S. Lewis thought had influenced him more than any other), he stated:

As I have more than once differed from Mr. H.G. Wells in his view of history, it is the more right that I should here congratulate him . . . on having asserted the reasonable right of the amateur to do what he can with the facts which the specialists provide.

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1955 -- originally 1925 -- Prefatory Note, 5)

As a final (and quintessential) example of what I am contending, observe how Chesterton described his book, St. Thomas Aquinas:

This book makes no pretence to be anything but a popular sketch of a great historical character . . . Its aim will be achieved, if it leads those who have hardly even heard of St. Thomas Aquinas to read about him in better books . . .

I have taken the view that the biography is an introduction to the philosophy, and that the philosophy is an introduction to the theology; and that I can carry the reader just beyond the first stage of the story.

(New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933, Introductory Note, ix, xi)

This was the work of an amateur; neither a philosopher nor a theologian (whereas St. Thomas was both). Now, does that make it invalid or somehow deceptive? Does it lose its value by that fact alone -- that its writer was essentially a journalist? No, not at all. And the scholars were precisely the people who were most vocal about this. The leading Thomists of the time, such as Vincent McNabb, Pere Gillet (the Master-General of the Dominican Order), Jacques Maritain, Anton C. Pegis, and above all, Etienne Gilson, heaped praise on Chesterton's biography. The latter (who considered Chesterton's Orthodoxy "the best piece of apologetic the century had produced") wrote:

Chesterton makes one despair. I have been studying St Thomas all my life and I could never have written such a book.

(in Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943, 620)

I consider it as being without possible comparison the best book ever written on St Thomas. Nothing short of genius can account for such an achievement . . . the few readers . . . who, perhaps, have themselves published two or three volumes on the subject, cannot fail to perceive that the so-called 'wit' of Chesterton has put their scholarship to shame . . . he has said all that which they were more or less clumsily attempting to express in academic formulas. Chesterton was one of the deepest thinkers who ever existed . . .

(Ibid., 620)

I do believe that our mind has a natural feeling for truth quite apart from dialectical reasoning -- in fact dialectical reasoning often clouds us to truth: G.K. always argues from his intellectual perception of truth, never towards it. In the case of Thomas Aquinas . . . I always feel him nearer the real Thomas than I am after reading and teaching the Angelic Doctor for sixty years . . . with Chesterton more than literature is at stake -- We love him . . . for his importance as a theologian at least as much as a writer.

(Chesterton Review, vol. XVIII, no. 2, 281-282; from the year 1965)

Chesterton's most recent major biographer, Joseph Pearce, observed:

. . . he hadn't written St Thomas Aquinas to receive the adulation and approval of scholars but to introduce the saint to those who had possibly never heard of him and to elucidate Thomist teaching to the public at large.

(Wisdom and Innocence: A Life of G.K. Chesterton, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996, 434)

And what were Chesterton's "credentials"? The man didn't even obtain a degree from college. He left the Slade School of Art, a department of University College, London, after the summer term in 1895 without one. He had studied English, French, History, and Political Economy, and lasted only a year in the Latin course before dropping it. Biographer Michael Ffinch writes:

Both Chesterton and his brother were particularly vague about this period of his life, which is understandable as there must have been some feeling of shame involved . . . Chesterton himself later in life naturally attempted to conceal the extent of his 'failure'.

(G.K. Chesterton: A Biography, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986, 41, 47; cf. Pearce, ibid., 35)

Who cares about Chesterton's "failure" as a student today, or about his lack of academic credentials? Was he not a Christian apologist (arguably the best and most influential of the first third of the 20th century)?

Meanwhile, a person who does have a Ph.D. coincidentally wrote to me (on 10-10-03), concerning something completely unrelated to this controversy. He strongly (in unsolicited remarks) confirms my point about "academic elitism" and "credentials" (and this is not by any means the only time people with doctorates have written such things to me -- I appreciate it very much and am humbled by it):

I keep thinking that you are more than qualified to teach at the university level, except for the absence of an "earned" advanced degree. I put "earned" in quotes, because you HAVE EARNED IT, just not in the traditional (lower case "t") way. Although you don't have the degree, you have done the writing required of advanced degrees and you've fulfilled the often drudgery of "publish or perish." But you could be an instructor or adjunct. If I can write letters of recommendation, I'd be glad to.

ADDENDUM

Thoughts on the Relationship of Apologetics to Philosophy ("Amateur" Apologists & "Philosophers," etc.)

"St. Worm," an Anglican, commented on my blog:

The apologist is a kind of philosopher, so I don't think it far fetched to speak in that vein. Was C.S. Lewis a philosopher or an apologist? See the false dilemma?

I reply:

It depends on the framework within which one approaches the question. You have professional apologists and philosophers and amateur ones. Lewis was a professional apologist (insofar as he wrote books and got paid for it, did talks, etc.) and a strictly amateur philosopher. Academically, he was an English professor.

Personally, I would be reluctant to call him a philosopher, without clarifying terms. That would be a bit of an insult, I think, to philosophers who got their advanced degrees in that field. Yet he was a very good "amateur philosopher" (one might say, "popularizer"). His book Miracles, for example, is very highly regarded by "real" philosophers as a helpful and important treatise on that subject.

I would also deny that "apologist" is a sub-group of "philosopher" for largely the same reason, but also because the goals are different. The apologist is committed to defending a religious viewpoint that he already believes, on other various grounds. That doesn't mean he is completely closed-minded (as a certain distressingly common rhetoric would have it), but for the moment he is defending one particular viewpoint over against others, and makes no bones about this.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as a Protestant or Catholic philosopher. Bertrand Russell denied (amazingly!) that St. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, because he had a Catholic viewpoint within which he operated. That was enough for Russell to classify him as an apologist and not a true philosopher. But of course that is ridiculous. Few would take it that far. St. Thomas' philosophizing has inherent intellectual worth, whether he was a Christian or Buddhist or a green-eyed, three-toed, left-handed, Rastafarian moth catcher (and whether one agrees with him or not). To deny this was simply prejudice on Russell's part and absurd atheist hubris and tunnel vision.

But on some level, the philosopher is (at least theoretically) committed to an open-ended search for truth (a la Descartes or Socrates). There is clearly overlap. Everyone has their axioms, beyond which they won't go. I deal with philosophical subjects, and do some philosophy of religion and so forth.

I would say that to earn the title of "apologist", one should have some sort of run-of-the-mill qualifications and credentials such as published articles, books, regular speaking tours and/or radio and television appearances, recommendations from the right people, teaching posts with archdioceses or in a recognized denomination, etc. (not just so many posts on some discussion board or blog).

Anyone can put up a website and "do apologetics." Whether they can call themselves "an apologist" is something else entirely. It seems to me that that indicates a calling and a devotion that goes far beyond just writing a few comments on a blog or board or chatting in a coffee house or college dorm here and there.

Have those who want to call themselves "apologists" wrangled with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, and shown how and why they are wrong? Have they debated atheists or Muslims or feminists or homosexual activists? Have they defended the Holy Trinity? Have they shown why Christians believe that the Bible is revelation from God? Have they shown why abortion or premarital sex is wrong, without recourse to religious arguments and terminology? Have they done exegesis and comparative doctrine and history of doctrine? Have they been commissioned or sanctioned by anyone who has any authority (academic or ecclesiastical)? No??? That's not an apologist. It's just someone who does some apologetics when they feel like it . . .

That would be like calling myself a "photographer" because I used a tripod a few times, and some different lenses, and have taken pictures all over the country (one which even came close to being sold by a "real" photographer). I'm not a photographer, but I love photography (mostly nature photography) and have done some of it. I am an apologist, because I have the credentials for that and have been called by God to do it. I was before I got paid for it (I was an amateur one, but still very much an apologist), and I am now that I do make my living (about 67% worth) from doing that work.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 31 October 2003; revised on 20 January 2004. Addendum added on 23 January 2005.