Relational Apologetics: How Do I Answer Their Questions? - A Simple Faith Special Series

Following Jesus isn't always easy, but it's not complicated. Join us each week as we work to make faith simple. This is simple faith. Welcome back everyone.

I'm Rusty George, and we are on episode four of our journey into relational apologetics. If you've missed the previous three. Stop right now and go back and listen to those first three. We've explored the power of connection, the art of empathetic listening, the importance of finding common ground.

Now we're tackling something that can often feel like a roadblock in conversations about faith objections and difficult questions. In our exploration of relational apologetics, we've established that building bridges of understanding is paramount. But even in the most carefully constructed relationships, questions and challenges will inevitably arise. These objections, whether intellectual, emotional, or experiential, are not necessarily signs of rejection.

Instead, they can be viewed as opportunities for deeper engagement and a more nuanced understanding of faith. Oh, that's so good because I think sometimes when someone raises an objection, our defenses immediately go up. We feel like we need to have all the answers right then and there, and it can turn into an argument instead of a conversation. Exactly.

Think back to our clip with Greg Coco, who emphasizes the importance of using questions in conversation. When someone presents an objection, instead of immediately countering it, we can respond with curiosity. Instead of saying, well, you're wrong about that. Well, you could ask something like, tell me more about why you feel that way, or what makes you say that? Yes, this approach aligns with hearing the heart like we discussed in episode two.

Understanding the heart behind the objection is super crucial. Is it based on a misunderstanding, a personal experience, or hurt, or a genuine intellectual struggle? You have to allow them to empty the bucket, and you have to be able to hear when they're ready to listen. Then once that bucket is empty, they can ask the question that is truly on their heart. That is your moment when you can help guide them as a community toward the answer that they are looking for.

You make it sound so simple, it sounds like you're saying that we don't have to be the expert. But we do have to be prepared. That's the difference between relational apologetics and traditional apologetics. You change the order from believe, then belong to belong then believe. In fact, it's very interesting. The, one of the, the prayer of Jesus to me that's the most fascinating is when he's on the cross.

Hmm. When you think about the, when you read the, uh, the New Testament description of the crucifixion in the original Greek in which it's written, one of the things you notice is that the imperfect tense of the Greek suggests that Jesus did not just say it once, but he kept praying it over and over during all the torture of the crucifixion, while the nails were being driven through his hands. While the nails were being driven through his feet, he kept repeating over and over.

Father, forgive them. Father. Forgive them. Father forgive them for they don't know what they do. So John Stotts, famous British pastor, pointed out, he said, look, um, the, the son of God prayed until his final gasps on the cross for people so depraved, they were torturing him to death. And the implication is for those of us who are followers of Jesus, in light of that, how can we justify not praying consistently and fervently and expectantly? For lost people in our lives.

That was a conversation with Lee Strobel, and that is an especially convicting thought because if we're truly inviting our lost friends and loved ones into community, then we'll naturally feel the urgency to pray for them, and not just for intellectual wisdom, but as someone who knows the joy and hope of salvation and desperately wants a loved one, to experience that even as that person is rejecting Jesus at that moment. And as it just so happens, that's how Jesus feels about them as well.

Mm mm. Community not only means falling in love and belonging, but comes with the burden of heartbreak when someone rejects that community. I. It's also important to recognize that objections can come in different forms. Sometimes they are intellectual challenges to the logic or evidence of Christian beliefs.

Other times they might be emotional responses stemming from pain, disappointment with the church or perceived hypocrisy, and sometimes they are practical concerns about how faith intersects with real world issues. Now, of course when I say what's the root of it, that depends on how we define it.

But I think a few things, if we mean deconstruction, somebody leaving their faith, there's a few common threads I often find, and by leaving their faith, I mean either becoming a Christian or the kind of progressive Christian that rejects orthodoxy. We find a few things in common. Number one, very often a fundamentalist strict. Background in the church. Not always, but often that is there. Second, you find a lot of hurts. Mm-hmm. And pain of how people were treated.

And third, you often find no room for questions and doubts. Just believe or very experiential kind of faith. Mm-hmm. I'm not, uh. Rejecting or downplaying the importance of the intellectual questions people raise. We have to be ready with an answer, but those threads are frequently there when somebody is deconstructing. So it's important. I wanna get to the heart of the issue for somebody and deal with it if I can. That's so good It, I mean, it really does come down to listing, doesn't it?

You just gotta ask several questions. What is it you're deconstructing from? What is it that you've found to be inconsistent? And I. And I think, uh, Jim Wallace was on this podcast and said the same thing at the heart of it, usually it is some kind of church hurt or disappointment with God, uh, that they, they don't know how to reconcile. So they've, they've thrown it all out and, uh, we intellectualize it, but at the heart of it, it's some kind of pain.

Well, I think Jay, you mean Jay Werner Wallace, right? Yes, I do. Is that as you refer to I, I I think he got it. That's often, often the case. So disappointment can be, I. Bad theology and expectations. Mm-hmm. And then when those expectations aren't met, we reject this faulty view of God that never in the first place was what we should have expected. Mm-hmm. That's a piece of it. So theology is important, but I don't think we can downplay the role that hurt plays.

Acknowledging the validity of those different types of objections is key. Someone who has experienced church hurt, as Sean McDowell mentioned, isn't going to be swayed by a purely intellectual argument until their emotional wounds are addressed. That's right. Our approach needs to be multifaceted, recognizing the interplay between the intellectual, emotional, and relational aspects of faith. When faced with a difficult question or objection.

One helpful strategy as highlighted by Lee Strobel is to make a personal connection. Sharing a relevant personal story or acknowledging a shared human experience can build rapport and create a less adversarial environment. So this strategy of sharing personal stories is. Really very similar to Jesus's own favorite strategy telling parables. That's right. It reminds me of the power of personal testimony, which we touched on in the last episode.

When you share your own journey, your own doubts and how you've wrestled with similar questions, I. It can be incredibly relatable and break down barriers. Consider also the wisdom of Greg Coco in his book tactics. One more question, sir, about those sax of gold. He emphasizes the Colombo tactic, asking clarifying questions to understand the other person's viewpoint before offering a response. This is not only great detective work, but it also ensures that you're addressing the actual objection.

And it demonstrates that you value their perspective. I love that book, and I love that this perspective actually buys you time. It's okay not to have all the answers immediately. Saying something like, that's a really interesting point. Let me think about that for a minute. Is much better than giving a rush or inaccurate answer when dealing with specific intellectual objections.

It's very helpful to be familiar with common arguments and evidence for the Christian faith. This is why resources from apologists like Jay Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel can be invaluable here. However, remember that the goal isn't necessarily to win an argument, but to guide someone to understanding exactly, and sometimes the most powerful response isn't a perfectly crafted argument, but simply acknowledging the difficulty of the question.

There are some things we may not have complete answers to on this side of eternity. Showing humility and honesty in those moments can be more impactful than trying to force a resolution. Not only that, but relational apologetics reminds us that our lives are a powerful form of witness. As we consistently demonstrate love, compassion, and integrity, we provide a living answer to some of the most. And biggest objections to faith? Absolutely.

Our actions speak volumes if we're claiming to follow Jesus, but our lives are marked by judgment and negativity. That creates a huge disconnect.

But there will also be times, despite our best efforts, a conversation reaches an impasse. In these situations, it's crucial to know when to step back respectfully. Relational apologetics prioritizes the relationship, and sometimes continuing to press an issue can damage that connection. That's a tough one, because we care deeply about what we believe and we want others to understand it too. But forcing someone to believe something they're not ready to accept.

Is pretty much never effective and can be counterproductive to building a lasting relationship. Again, this is like the last supper when Peter promised that he would be willing to die for Christ, but as we saw in a previous episode, he was not yet ready to live for Christ.

Well, let's consider together, think about a time you raised a difficult question or objection about something you weren't sure about. What kind of response did you find most helpful? And for those of us who were sharing our faith, how can we become more comfortable with not having all the answers and seeing objections as opportunities for deeper connection rather than threats?

How can we make the mental shift from being an expert to being a host or guide, journeying with someone to learn the truth together? What are some practical ways we can show respect and empathy? When someone challenges our beliefs, even if we strongly disagree with their perspective, take some time this week to reflect on that. Think about how you typically respond to objections and how you might approach them differently moving forward.

All right. Looking ahead to our final episode in the series, let's consider this. If relational apologetics emphasizes a long-term approach of building a relationship. And fostering understanding and community. What does it look like to persevere in those relationships even when there seems to be no immediate change or acceptance of our beliefs? That's a crucial question we'll be exploring in our final episode of the series. It's about the long game of relational faith.

Well, thanks for joining us today. You can find more resources and connect with us@pastorrustygeorge.com. Make sure you share this series with a friend. But until next time, let's keep exploring faith through connection and remember to keep it simple.