Scott Gordon On The Meaning Of 'apologetics'

[Scott Lloyd]

In the latest online FairMormon Journal, FairMormon president Scott Gordon has published a very clear, readable and well-written treatise on the meaning of the words apologist and apologetics. Because I don't see it up yet on the FairMormon website, I am copying and pasting it here in full. Scott is a friend of mine, and I trust he won't mind my doing so. If he does, I'm sure he will let me know, and I will take it down.

 

I'm posting it because I so often see these words abused by those who clearly are ignorant of the origin and correct meaning of those terms in the context of reasoned defense.

 

I'm not so much irked by those whose confusion stems from their understanding of the contemporary and more common meaning, to express sorrow or regret or assume blame for something. My real annoyance is with those, some of whom have posted on this very message board, who seem to understand that apologist means defender, yet they harbor the notion that there is something shameful or ignoble about being an apologist. In short, they use the term as a pejorative. In doing so, they are misguided.

 

I direct your attention to the FairMormon Journal "President's Message" from Scott:

 

We are having a problem with words. We often have a problem with words within Mormonism. For example, what do your non-member friends think when you say you are going to the stake center? Do your friends know what a ward is? Some of my Catholic friends raised eyebrows several years ago when I told them I was a bishop.

But the word problem this time isn’t between Mormons and non-Mormons but is within Mormonism. I am talking about the word “Apologist.” There have been several blog posts and Facebook discussions that show a lack of understanding of the word.

What is an apologist? First of all, it is not someone who is saying they are sorry. It is someone who is defending their position. Wait, you ask, how do you get “defending” out of a word that sounds like apologize?

The root of the word apologist comes from the Greek word apologia meaning “a reply.” In 1 Peter 3:15, it says:

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

The phrase “to give an answer” is expressed in one word in the Greek. That word is apologian.
One of the online interlinear bibles describes it as follows:
ἀπολογία {ap-ol-og-ee'-ah} 1) verbal defense, speech in defense  2) a reasoned statement or argument.

According to Wikipedia, that source of all knowledge, in the early Greek legal system a prosecutor would deliver the charges that were leveled against someone and the reasoning for those charges. The defendant replied with an “apologia” or apology defending what they had done. In modern English, the primary meaning of apology has morphed into a plea for forgiveness for what you did wrong. That understanding does not reflect the original or the full meaning of the word.  It leaves out the whole speaking in defense idea.

Some noted apologists from history were Plato, Socrates, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, Peter Abelard , and Erasmus. Their writings are considered among some of the greatest works of Christian thought.

But the term apologetics doesn’t only refer to religion. It is used to describe Augustus Caesar's apologia or defense of his accomplishments as Roman Emperor. Referring to the Caesar writings, the apologetics article in Wikipedia, citing Lewis & Reinhold’s book Roman Civilization, vol ii, pp. 9–19, New York: Columbia University Press 1955, says, “It is regarded as one of the more important apologias of the ancient world.”

So, who are the trained apologists of today? By the original Greek definition, every defense attorney you know is an apologist. Every scientist you know is an apologist, as they have to defend their position. Everyone who has received a PhD in just about anything is a trained apologist as they had to defend their dissertation.  Those people who make arguments against, or in favor of, global climate change, are climate change apologists. Politicians often engage in apologetics. If you turn on FOX news, or MSNBC, you will often hear pundits defending their positions. They are engaging in apologetics.

Then we have our Mormon problem.

On several blogs and Facebook postings, there has been an attempt to differentiate “scholar” from “apologist.” This is a mistaken notion. It would be like trying to differentiate “defense attorney” from “apologist.” By definition, a defense attorney is an apologist as that is the source of the Greek word apologia. As I previously stated, any scholar who has a PhD, or who has defended a position has acted in the role of an apologist. Let me say again. ANY SCHOLAR who has defended a position is an apologist.

So, why is there an attempt to make a distinction? Why do some want to change the definition of a very established word? Why has the term “Apologist” become, in some circles, a pejorative? While it’s true that all scholars are apologists, it’s not true that all apologists are scholars.  Apologists come from a variety of walks of life. Some are skilled in research methods, and some are not. This can muddy the waters and create strange bedfellows. Some people engage in something I refer to as “bad apologetics.” The bad apologetics may jump to premature conclusions, or lack evidence and support. Another problem with bad apologetics is it could include the brand of apologetics called “Polemics,” which in the Greek means “warlike” or “hostile” argument. This form of discussion can be distasteful within our faith community where we work so hard to get along.

I suspect the biggest reason for the false distinction and then dismissal of “apologists” is to use it as an ad hominem (against the person) attempt to dismiss the person from the discussion. If you can simply call a person an apologist, you can then dismiss anything they might say.  But, this is silly. This is like saying, “Oh, he is only a rocket scientist so I don’t have to listen to him.” Or “Oh, he is only an attorney, so I am not going to believe anything he says.” It is a false argument that has no merit.

Another argument I have seen is that apologists already have their minds made up as they look at the evidence. This refers to the position that most LDS apologists believe that the LDS Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. But, the people that I know didn’t start from that position. Indeed many of them first started with the question of whether or not it was true, studied it out, and then came to their own conclusion. It was only after that process that they became an apologist. The same process is true for anyone who defends a position. Critics and believers alike typically hold discussion with a set of beliefs they have already worked out for themselves. If it were not so, there would be no discussion. They may modify that position as they learn more information, but they start from a studied-out point of view.

So, next time you see someone trying to dismiss someone for being an “Apologist,” just remember that is an “ad hominem, or against the person, attack.

Next time you hear someone trying to separate scholars from apologist, remember that all scholars are apologists.

Next time you hear someone say we shouldn’t use the word “apologetics” because people use bad arguments; you can ask if we should also eliminate the word “debate” just because bad arguments are made during presidential debates.

As a reassurance, FairMormon tries to give all of the information someone needs to make an informed decision. We try to avoid polemics and of course we try to avoid bad apologetics.

Go out and apologize for your cause. But, you may not want to call it apologetics as most people won’t understand what that means. I hope my apology for apologetics has cleared up everything.  And yes, you can say “apology for apologetics” and it does not mean you are apologizing.

Scott Gordon

 

 

[Buckeye]

Several years ago I was entering my local temple. It was a slow day. The man working the recommend desk was reading a book by Dan Petersen. I can't remember the title, but I believe it was Offenders for a Word. I tried to offer a compliment and mentioned something along the lines of Dan being "one of my favorite apologists." To my surprise, the worker took offense and said he would never give the time of day to an apologist. He then checked my recommend and went back to reading Dan's book.

[USU78]

 

Several years ago I was entering my local temple. It was a slow day. The man working the recommend desk was reading a book by Dan Petersen. I can't remember the title, but I believe it was Offenders for a Word. I tried to offer a compliment and mentioned something along the lines of Dan being "one of my favorite apologists." To my surprise, the worker took offense and said he would never give the time of day to an apologist. He then checked my recommend and went back to reading Dan's book.

 

 

Speaks nicely to the success of efforts by antiMormons and boobirds at demonizing apologetics and apologists.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Several years ago I was entering my local temple. It was a slow day. The man working the recommend desk was reading a book by Dan Petersen. I can't remember the title, but I believe it was Offenders for a Word. I tried to offer a compliment and mentioned something along the lines of Dan being "one of my favorite apologists." To my surprise, the worker took offense and said he would never give the time of day to an apologist. He then checked my recommend and went back to reading Dan's book.

 

This story is hilarious!

[Mars]

Speaking for myself:

 

The critics are in my head.

 

I can't read Church History - even D&C without having to deal with a voice in the back of my head that screams "Joseph Smith made it up!"

 

I can't read the Book of Mormon without having an Evangelical voice scream in the back of my head "It's all lies!  They haven't found any of this stuff!  Horses!  Tapirs!  Vineyards!"

 

I can't read the Pearl of Great Price without hearing "~derisive laugh~ Oh, right, this hippy dippy baloney?!  It's a funerary manuscript!  Joseph Smith is such a liar, man!"

 

I can't bear my testimony without hearing "You're just a pre-programmed automaton, doing what you were raised to do."

 

~shrugs~

 

It's hard not to be influenced by how loud and persuasive some of the critics are.  I don't want to be guilty of the horrible things they accuse me of being or doing.  It's insulting to think I'm just doing what I was raised to do without questioning it.  When I encounter a sticky issue, and my mind races to the worst possible interpretations of the motives behind pro-Church figures, I can't help but wonder if the apologist is just blind to the obvious facts at hand.  So yeah...  I kinda resist describing myself as an apologist.  I just want the Church and its Gospel to be given a fair shake by its critics.  I feel like a great many arguments arrayed against the Church and its Gospel would vanish if critics did a better job treating our claims.  Either that or they'd realize the same mud that sticks against us sticks against a great many of their own ideals and beliefs - be they atheist, Evangelical, or what have you.  And I'd think that that realization would temper their zeal in uncovering Mormonism, but I digress...

 

I'm gradually coming to accept that that voice is a part of me.  I don't ignore it, I entertain it.  I ultimately choose to discard much of what it says - but it is indeed my choice.  I hate how this must sound to the critic, but there it is: unflinching honesty on the part of a TBM.

[stemelbow]

Thanks. I've seen the use of the term apologist as a way to dismiss arguments all too often. The reasoning seems to go something like this:

An apologist is one who assumes the conclusion and then only views the evidence that supports the conclusion.

The right way to do scholarship is to collect data and draw a conclusion on that data.

Therefore apologetics is faulty.

Then that gets extended to, the things an apologists says is bad.

I think that in itself is a wrong way to view it. An apologist is one who defends faith positions. Thus, most often, apologetics works on the criticisms of the faith. It seems on this an apologist is one who applies logic to critiques to see if the critiques hold up. That seemed to be the methodology of Offenders for a Word (mentioned earlier).

[Scott Lloyd]

Speaking for myself:

 

The critics are in my head.

 

I can't read Church History - even D&C without having to deal with a voice in the back of my head that screams "Joseph Smith made it up!"

 

I can't read the Book of Mormon without having an Evangelical voice scream in the back of my head "It's all lies!  They haven't found any of this stuff!  Horses!  Tapirs!  Vineyards!"

 

I can't read the Pearl of Great Price without hearing "~derisive laugh~ Oh, right, this hippy dippy baloney?!  It's a funerary manuscript!  Joseph Smith is such a liar, man!"

 

I can't bear my testimony without hearing "You're just a pre-programmed automaton, doing what you were raised to do."

 

~shrugs~

 

It's hard not to be influenced by how loud and persuasive some of the critics are.  I don't want to be guilty of the horrible things they accuse me of being or doing.  It's insulting to think I'm just doing what I was raised to do without questioning it.  When I encounter a sticky issue, and my mind races to the worst possible interpretations of the motives behind pro-Church figures, I can't help but wonder if the apologist is just blind to the obvious facts at hand.  So yeah...  I kinda resist describing myself as an apologist.  I just want the Church and its Gospel to be given a fair shake by its critics.  I feel like a great many arguments arrayed against the Church and its Gospel would vanish if critics did a better job treating our claims.  Either that or they'd realize the same mud that sticks against us sticks against a great many of their own ideals and beliefs - be they atheist, Evangelical, or what have you.  And I'd think that that realization would temper their zeal in uncovering Mormonism, but I digress...

 

I'm gradually coming to accept that that voice is a part of me.  I don't ignore it, I entertain it.  I ultimately choose to discard much of what it says - but it is indeed my choice.  I hate how this must sound to the critic, but there it is: unflinching honesty on the part of a TBM.

It is the shrillness, pervasiveness and occasional persuasiveness of the critics that makes LDS apologetics necessary.

[stemelbow]

Speaking for myself:

 

The critics are in my head.

 

I can't read Church History - even D&C without having to deal with a voice in the back of my head that screams "Joseph Smith made it up!"

 

I can't read the Book of Mormon without having an Evangelical voice scream in the back of my head "It's all lies!  They haven't found any of this stuff!  Horses!  Tapirs!  Vineyards!"

 

I can't read the Pearl of Great Price without hearing "~derisive laugh~ Oh, right, this hippy dippy baloney?!  It's a funerary manuscript!  Joseph Smith is such a liar, man!"

 

I can't bear my testimony without hearing "You're just a pre-programmed automaton, doing what you were raised to do."

 

~shrugs~

 

It's hard not to be influenced by how loud and persuasive some of the critics are.  I don't want to be guilty of the horrible things they accuse me of being or doing.  It's insulting to think I'm just doing what I was raised to do without questioning it.  When I encounter a sticky issue, and my mind races to the worst possible interpretations of the motives behind pro-Church figures, I can't help but wonder if the apologist is just blind to the obvious facts at hand.  So yeah...  I kinda resist describing myself as an apologist.  I just want the Church and its Gospel to be given a fair shake by its critics.  I feel like a great many arguments arrayed against the Church and its Gospel would vanish if critics did a better job treating our claims.  Either that or they'd realize the same mud that sticks against us sticks against a great many of their own ideals and beliefs - be they atheist, Evangelical, or what have you.  And I'd think that that realization would temper their zeal in uncovering Mormonism, but I digress...

 

I'm gradually coming to accept that that voice is a part of me.  I don't ignore it, I entertain it.  I ultimately choose to discard much of what it says - but it is indeed my choice.  I hate how this must sound to the critic, but there it is: unflinching honesty on the part of a TBM.

I like your thoughts. I think it's worth noting a person is not only an apologist. Just because someone has a defense or an answer for a faith position does not mean that is all the person is about. You have to put on your apologist hat to engage in the genre, as I see it. But you also can be many other things.

[Mars]

It is the shrillness, pervasiveness and occasional persuasiveness of the critics that makes LDS apologetics necessary.

 

I don't disagree.

[KevinG]

Being able to see yourself as others see you is a gift.  To A Louse  However - being able to take those views, compare and contrast with our own viewpoints, and verify them with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, is priceless.

 

I appreciate being disabused of faith promoting rumors, and becoming a more informed customer of Mormonism.  However, I have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  Ultimately my religion is a matter of faith.  My testimony a matter of the Spirit of Truth.  My membership a matter of my agency.  

 

As long as I remember God is the owner of all truth, and obedience to His laws the sure way to access it  (D&C 93), sorting through the many voices is of interest and value, but it does not define my faith.  

[Nevo]

I guess the problem I have with LDS apologetics (especially the amateur variety) is the hyper-defensive, partisan nature of the enterprise. There is often an unwillingness to concede anything at all to "critics." Every inch of ground must be defended to the death. You almost never hear an apologist say to a critic, "Well, that's a good point. Maybe you're right about that." And vice versa. It's a zero-sum game.

[Mars]

I guess the problem I have with LDS apologetics (especially the amateur variety) is the hyper-defensive, partisan nature of the enterprise. There is often an unwillingness to concede anything at all to "critics." Every inch of ground must be defended to the death. You almost never hear an apologist say to a critic, "Well, that's a good point. Maybe you're right about that." And vice versa. It's a zero-sum game.

 

Well, that's a good point.

 

Maybe you're right about that.

[stemelbow]

I guess the problem I have with LDS apologetics (especially the amateur variety) is the hyper-defensive, partisan nature of the enterprise. There is often an unwillingness to concede anything at all to "critics." Every inch of ground must be defended to the death. You almost never hear an apologist say to a critic, "Well, that's a good point. Maybe you're right about that." And vice versa. It's a zero-sum game.

There are plenty of amateur LDS apologists sitting on this board who do just as you suggest at the end there. I've seen it myself. But to be fair, critics voices, even the less amateur variety, can be hyper-offensive, and partisan in nature. And as it is, apologists would exist if there were no critics. The tone often get's set by the initiator.

[stemelbow]

Well, that's a good point.

 

Maybe you're right about that.

Posted 2 minutes before my hyper-defensive, partisan nature of a response.

Great...now I'm sure I just got dismissed as a lowly apologist.

[Mars]

Posted 2 minutes before my hyper-defensive, partisan nature of a response.

Great...now I'm sure I just got dismissed as a lowly apologist.

 

c'mon he totally tee'd that up for me...

[Nevo]

There are plenty of amateur LDS apologists sitting on this board who do just as you suggest at the end there. I've seen it myself. But to be fair, critics voices, even the less amateur variety, can be hyper-offensive, and partisan in nature. And as it is, apologists would exist if there were no critics. The tone often get's set by the initiator.

 

I don't give critics a pass either. You say that "the tone often gets set by the initiator." Maybe so, but what is gained if LDS apologists simply become the mirror-image of their critics? Then we just have two sets of ideologues who are both convinced that they are absolutely right and that the other side is absolutely wrong. Such exchanges, as we know, tend to generate more heat than light, with both sides typically becoming even more entrenched in their respective beliefs.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

I don't give critics a pass either. You say that "the tone often gets set by the initiator." Maybe so, but what is gained if LDS apologists simply become the mirror-image of their critics? Then we just have two sets of ideologues who are both convinced that they are absolutely right and that the other side is absolutely wrong. Such exchanges, as we know, tend to generate more heat than light.

Sure, but it seems to me the type of apologist you reference isn't the norm. I don't think the enterprise is quite like you describe. it can get ugly, and people can be insensitive, defensive and rude. But that doesn't define the enterprise. It just so happens these topics raise plenty of emotion in both sides.

[Coreyb]

Can't one be both critic AND apologist?

[stemelbow]

Can't one be both critic AND apologist?

That's me.

[Nevo]

I don't think the enterprise is quite like you describe. it can get ugly, and people can be insensitive, defensive and rude. But that doesn't define the enterprise.

 

I think defensiveness does define the enterprise. And a certain inflexibility.

 

Take, for example, the issue of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Few, if any, apologists will concede outright that there are obvious anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Anyone making such a claim can expect to get a lot of pushback. Anachronisms? What anachronisms? What's an anachronism anyway?

[stemelbow]

I think defensiveness does define the enterprise. And a certain inflexibility.

 

Take, for example, the issue of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Few, if any, apologists will concede outright that there are obvious anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Anyone making such a claim can expect to get a lot of pushback. Anachronisms? What anachronisms? What's an anachronism anyway?

Anachronisms? Sure why not? They're right there, in the text. How could they be? Well, it seems apologists are trying to answer how they could be--sometimes they may suggest while steel would be anachronistic, we might want to look into other metals could have possibly existed even if archaeology hasn't turned up evidence of such.

Whle I hear your complaint and can agree to an extent. I don't know that there's a study out there figuring out the percentages. It seems many apologists can be quite reasonable.

[De Groote]

Being an apologist is never having to say you're sorry.

[KevinG]

I think defensiveness does define the enterprise. And a certain inflexibility.

 

Take, for example, the issue of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Few, if any, apologists will concede outright that there are obvious anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Anyone making such a claim can expect to get a lot of pushback. Anachronisms? What anachronisms? What's an anachronism anyway?

 

That is unfair.  I myself (claiming to be no great apologist but an amateur) have addressed this issue on this board.  I think the anachronisms come from the translator (a young man heavily steeped in King James bible verses) and not the source document.  It has been discussed fairly.

[Nevo]

That is unfair.  I myself (claiming to be no great apologist but an amateur) have addressed this issue on this board.  I think the anachronisms come from the translator (a young man heavily steeped in King James bible verses) and not the source document.  It has been discussed fairly.

 

I admit that I am not familiar with your arguments regarding Book of Mormon anachronisms. If you readily concede that the Book of Mormon contains obvious anachronisms, you're probably outside of the apologetic mainstream. I think Kevin Christensen (who I respect a great deal) may be more representative: "I've noticed that many so-called anachronisms are the product of reader misjudgment, based on a lack of information about the past combined with their assumptions about what is possible" (link). If you read Kevin C.'s post carefully, he doesn't outright deny the existence of anachronisms in the text, but he consistently minimizes and downplays the notion.

 

Compare Terryl Givens, who, though a believer in Book of Mormon historicity, candidly acknowledges "the transparent relevance of the Book of Mormon to nineteenth-century cultural and religious preoccupations" (Givens, The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction, 116) and "what appear to be striking intrusions into the Book of Mormon text of anachronisms, nineteenth-century parallels, and elements that appear to many scholars to be historically implausible and inconsistent with what is known about ancient American cultures" (122). Now Givens isn't actually conceding the presence of anachronisms either (he only goes so far as to say that there are apparent anachronisms), but his treatment of the subject seems markedly less defensive than Kevin's.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Nevo

[KevinG]

My point being disagreement does not necessarily mean defensive.  To characterize apologists as a group as defensive is unfair.