-
Website
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/07/23/leaving-the-faith-undefended/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
makeesha
97 comments · 2 points
-
Michael Cline
99 comments · 1 points
-
Ted Troxell
79 comments · 1 points
-
Joel
84 comments · 4 points
-
markvans
334 comments · 11 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Good News for Whom?
3 days ago · 9 comments
-
A Third Letter from A Common Sense Atheist
2 weeks ago · 25 comments
-
Repent! For the Kingdom of God is Near
4 weeks ago · 18 comments
-
A Poem For Mother Teresa
2 weeks ago · 5 comments
-
the least of these my brethren
3 weeks ago · 7 comments
-
Good News for Whom?
"I remember being phoned by a reporter one time and being asked what I thought about the blasphemy laws and whether I would like to see them abolished. And without really thinking about it (I must have been saying my prayers, or someone was praying for me) I heard myself say: 'The Jesus that I worship allowed himself to be mocked, beaten, and spat upon, and when one of His followers tried to defend Him, He said "We don't do things that way." And that is precisely the story by which the world is saved.'"
I'd defer to the good Bishop on this one.
Grace and Peace.
(for what its worth, NTW has said that he really does struggle often to stay in the Anglican Communion for a variety of reasons, but finds it his calling to bring gospel life and faithfulness during an era of ecclesiological tumult... I think he talks about that in his third "Future of the People of God" lecture, not that I've listened to them many times...)
However, where does that leave the field of apologetics? Do you see any difference between apologetics and "defending the faith"? Do you see apologetics (e.g., the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and even N.T. Wright) as a waste of time? And how would you interpret verses such as 1 Peter 3:15-16, which seem to imply that we should have some kind of response when people want to know why we believe what we believe.
The other is a more antagonistic defense, where one demands a change of mind or behaviour of the 'attacker'. It is this defense that I argue is unnecessary; the first one is a healthy one and should be regarded as such.
This is a core part of many Muslims' identity, which is why I used it as an example; unlike the faith of Islam, this need not be part of the core identity of Christians; there is no need to defend our faith in that manner. Mohammed killed many of those who mocked him; Christ himself was killed by those who mocked him, and his disciples followed suit. The difference is striking.
But as you've illustrated so well in the above post, sometimes it's really simple.
Thank you for such simple clarity.